If someone started a debate on evolution would anyone be wiling to join?

Zhavric

March 12th, 2007, 09:13 AM

Consider it begun!

Welcome to ODN.

I take it you support K. Hovind's position? Do you consider yourself a young earth creationist? Please detail your argument against evolution / for creationism (or what have you).

khonline

March 12th, 2007, 09:19 AM

Thanks for the welcome :) And yes, I do support Hovind. Earth Creasionist? explain yourself there.

My arguement(s):

*earth is NOT millions of years old
*abortion IS murder and they ought to make it illegal
*dinoausers have lived and still live with man
*text books have to be acurate with current and confermed reaserch

and tons more. how about the first one? 'Earth is NOT millions of years old'?

Zhavric

March 12th, 2007, 09:34 AM

Well, I agree with you that the Earth isn't Millions of years old: it's billions.

he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments.

The Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)

The article continues on and gets a bit technical, but that should give you the gist of things. It also goes on to debunk many young earth arguments about the age of the planet.

If you hold to a young earth, then you believe the earth to be only 6000 or so years old. Is that the case? If so, then how do you account for human cave paintings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting)from tens of thousands of years ago?

khonline

March 12th, 2007, 09:46 AM

OK. Please answer the following questions:

1. How can you tell the age of the rocks?
2. How can you tell the age of the minerals, ect.
3. Do you beleive in the Big Bang?
4. What do you beleive to be the oldest nationality on the planet?
5. Are you a scientist?
6. Does the moon move further away from the earth very year?

Now, my theory:

I beleive God created the earth ABOUT 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the earth is NOT EVEN 6,000. What do you beleive to be the oldest nationality on the earth? I beleive it to be the Hebrews. If you look at there calendar, it states the year, 6976-6977.

The rest is will be posted when you answer the questions.

Zhavric

March 12th, 2007, 12:15 PM

1. How can you tell the age of the rocks?
2. How can you tell the age of the minerals, ect.

Most folks understand that dating "minerals" varies little from dating rocks. My spidey-sense is tingling in anticipation of some apologist website giving misinformation of carbon dating. As the article I linked to noted, rocks can be dated by a variety of methods including radiometric dating of other radioactive substances beyond carbon.

Basically, we can measure how long it takes for radioactive substances to break down.

3. Do you beleive in the Big Bang?

"Believe in" is a four letter word.

I acknowledge the big bang as the best hyopthesis to explain the origin of the universe. It fits the evidence we've collected so far. The god hypothesis has absolutely no merit.

4. What do you beleive to be the oldest nationality on the planet?

Has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of the age of the planet. Nations are inventions of human beings. Recent inventions.

5. Are you a scientist?

Only an amateur. :afro:

6. Does the moon move further away from the earth very year?

Nope:

Dr. Lisle has made an elementary error in the above excerpt. While he is correct for his (approximate) distance of 250 m after 6,000 year calculation, he seems to have dropped a ‘0’ for the time for the Earth and Moon to touch.

I beleive God created the earth ABOUT 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the earth is NOT EVEN 6,000. What do you beleive to be the oldest nationality on the earth? I beleive it to be the Hebrews. If you look at there calendar, it states the year, 6976-6977.

The rest is will be posted when you answer the questions.

The link I gave from talkorigins.org in my earlier post completely invalidates this hypothesis. Again: nation is an invention of humanity (a very modern one) and plays no part in an argument about the age of the planet.

Not to butt-in, but he has no outstanding evidecne for any of his jargon anyways.

Harrison383

April 20th, 2007, 06:56 PM

I'm just peeved Zhav keeps snagging up these easy kills. I get excited when I see an opening post like that, then he has to swoop in...

Squatch347

May 5th, 2007, 10:40 AM

Wait, why didn't we discuss his early point of Dinosaurs still living with man? I would love to hear the answer behind that one. Unless he means birds, then I'm going to be pissed.

GoldPhoenix

May 5th, 2007, 05:32 PM

No, no Squatch. That would be admitting evolution actually exists.

Squatch347

May 5th, 2007, 05:58 PM

Dang you are absolutely right. GP
Zhav your spidey sense was absolutely right, surprised it didn't come up. Carbon dating is kinda shady when it comes to archaeological finds. Rocks and earth dating however it is extremely accurate. Certainly not several billion years off anyway.

Splatfly

May 5th, 2007, 06:22 PM

Wait, why didn't we discuss his early point of Dinosaurs still living with man? I would love to hear the answer behind that one. Unless he means birds, then I'm going to be pissed.
LoL. Didn't you know, the dinosaurs live underground, just the Martians do on Mars.:lol:
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Carbon dating is kinda shady when it comes to archaeological finds. Rocks and earth dating however it is extremely accurate. Certainly not several billion years off anyway.
Its pretty rare to get a Macro fossil which you can use to date sedimentary rocks, as most fossils are casts/moulds without any of the original remains left. Its common practice to get dates from Micro Fossils. But really fossils are left alone and rocks are dated other ways. Sedimentary rocks are nasty because they can be laid down eroded and relaid over a number of times so the fossils could be a lot older than the rock they're in.

Squatch347

May 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM

LoL. Didn't you know, the dinosaurs live underground, just the Martians do on Mars.:lol: Thats just a myth, obviously all of our secret underground military bases would have seen them ;-)d

GoldPhoenix

May 6th, 2007, 11:15 AM

Thats just a myth, obviously all of our secret underground military bases would have seen them ;-)d

Don't forget that Elvis and Tupac live there, too.

Squatch347

May 6th, 2007, 03:00 PM

Well we use them for USO shows actually, they have a routine you would be amazed by!

domination16

May 8th, 2007, 07:47 PM

evolution cannot exist due to the fact that we have never found the "missing link"
darwin searched and searched for the "missing link" on the galapagos and to his dismay never found ay fossils for an animal that linked together birds of the galapagos or any other animal for that matter
furthermore, once darwin discovered this, he denounced his own theory, stating that he could not discover the missing link
people refused to accept his statement
we as the human race refuse to believe that evolution cannot exist because that would prove the existance of a higher being
for where else can species originate from
rocks.....lol
and we as people do not want to believe in a higher being
becasue thus we are held accountable for all our immoral actions
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
evolution cannot exist due to the fact that we have never found the "missing link"
darwin searched and searched for the "missing link" on the galapagos and to his dismay never found ay fossils for an animal that linked together birds of the galapagos or any other animal for that matter
furthermore, once darwin discovered this, he denounced his own theory, stating that he could not discover the missing link
people refused to accept his statement
we as the human race refuse to believe that evolution cannot exist because that would prove the existance of a higher being
for where else can species originate from
rocks.....lol
and we as people do not want to believe in a higher being
becasue thus we are held accountable for all our immoral actions[/QUOTE]

Squatch347

May 8th, 2007, 07:49 PM

However, (and I'm not fully supporting evolution here, just pointing out your flaws in the argument). One he was only there for a couple of weeks, and two there will always be a missing link. Its very similar to Zeno's paradox, you can infinitely divide an object up. In this case you can always claim a missing link unless every member was fossilized and you found every single one.

catch22

May 8th, 2007, 07:55 PM

evolution cannot exist due to the fact that we have never found the "missing link"

And God cannot exist because we have never found definitive proof of him.

darwin searched and searched for the "missing link" on the galapagos and to his dismay never found ay fossils for an animal that linked together birds of the galapagos or any other animal for that matter
furthermore, once darwin discovered this, he denounced his own theory, stating that he could not discover the missing link

Darwin was one person, working with a half a lifetime to find hundreds of fossils and connect them all together. You can't possible expect one person to find everything just like that.

people refused to accept his statement
we as the human race refuse to believe that evolution cannot exist because that would prove the existance of a higher being
for where else can species originate from
rocks.....lol

So are you an old earth or young earth creationist?

and we as people do not want to believe in a higher being
becasue thus we are held accountable for all our immoral actions

Huh? Tell that to the 84% of the worlds population that does believe in a higher being.

MrFungus420

May 8th, 2007, 08:03 PM

evolution cannot exist due to the fact that we have never found the "missing link"

We have never found life on another planet, either. So, by your "logic" life on other planets cannot exist.

darwin searched and searched for the "missing link" on the galapagos and to his dismay never found ay fossils for an animal that linked together birds of the galapagos or any other animal for that matter
furthermore, once darwin discovered this, he denounced his own theory, stating that he could not discover the missing link

I'll let the Answers in Genesis website answer that one.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Not even creationists believe that lie anymore.

people refused to accept his statement

Because he never made it.

wanxtrmBANNED

May 10th, 2007, 06:37 AM

This is funny,

"I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions."
Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)

AliceLiddell

May 12th, 2007, 07:42 AM

I think both groups have the same flaw in their thinking. There is a difference between what you believe could be possible, and what you believe actually is.

I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what some fundamental creationists believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be a valid scientific explanation.

For example, at one time "science" thought the earth was younger than is now widely accepted within the scientific community. The age had been calculated based on the cooling rate of the earth and it was thought that the only heat source that could affect the equation was from space. Later, radioactive isotopes within the earth's crust were found and this radically affected the equation. So, "science" can be wrong at times, but when it is wrong, it possible to find another valid scientific explanation to explain the discrepancy.

Likewise, I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what many scientific experts believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be some valid mystical explanation.

Perhaps after "God" created the world as explained in Genesis, he used his supernatural powers to make the age of the earth different than what it would have been within the realms of natural linear time progression.

Now, I have my own personal preference for which of these two ideas I believe to be more probable. But I won't deny the possibility that I *could be* wrong. Hopefully though, I'm at least able to "wear the glasses" of both sides as wanna references in the preceding post.

"Run towards those who seek the answers. Run from those who find them."

GoldPhoenix

May 12th, 2007, 01:27 PM

evolution cannot exist due to the fact that we have never found the "missing link"

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Turtleflipper

May 12th, 2007, 01:32 PM

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

Yes it does :coolsmiley:
We've just got butt-loads for evolution, and like 3 or 4 "missing links"

Nagasena

May 14th, 2007, 12:59 AM

1. How can you tell the age of the rocks?
2. How can you tell the age of the minerals, ect.
3. Do you beleive in the Big Bang?

Big Bang and young earth.
Star like our sun is a continuous nuclear reaction which fusing material and release tremendous energy. The star fuse simple material became more complec material, like Hydrogen became helium, helium became oxygen, oxygen became carbon, etc. Those burning material like H, He, C produce energy also every fusion from each atom release a large amount energy that's make star shine and hot. But once those material start forming complex material, the fusion behaviour change. Instead of produce energy, complex material like iron absorb energy to provide fusion. At the time H, He, & C from star burnt out and star form complex material, it's suck all energy at surrounding area. When the large amount of complex material (planet size) absorb energy very fast it's became unstable isotope, and with overwhelming energy, complex material start fusing them self. Unstable iron isotope start fusion it's will explode as supernova and ejecting it's massive radioactive material as cosmic dust, nebula or bigger dense material. If those star big enough the nucleus of it's body will remain and those explosion produce another simple material like H, & He than chain reaction story repeated as new born star.

4.57 billion years ago a star die and supernova occur ejecting large amount of cosmic dust & melted nebula (splash of molten complex material) as well give rebirth a new star "our sun". Those cosmic material bind by sun's gravity make eliptical orbit, melted nebula start make round form (like water drop that tend to shape round), at it's random orbit nebula collect cosmic dust and got hit by meteorite adding it's volume. When those large radioactive decreased, temperature decreased as well. Material turn became hard at surface remain melt at center because of no heat relief and named as "Magma", this is the way a planet born.

Meanwhile cosmic dust & meteorite continuously unified adding mass & volume to the planet. At most planet while still as nebula no H, He, O & C occur, it's mean when it's turn became a planet it's will stay as a large plain rock. At this point those type of planet have no condition to build Atmosphere. Sometimes a nebula also either forming or carry material containing He, H, O & C like HF, Fe2O3 so when it's turn hard those material will deposit inside the planet.

When the volume of the planet large enough, the 2nd process occur.

Thermodynamic research show that a piece of rock like granite still produce a verysmall micro radioactive energy. At normal air and near surface condition those micro radioactive heat easily nutralized and small enough that can be ignored as nil. The condition is diffrent at near center of the planet, near center containing dense material no void a small amount of radioactive heat have no relief. Micro amount of heat by particle radiation accumulated under billion of years became a large amount of energy, large enough to melt the particle it's self. By those molten rock the amount of magma increasing. Molten rock burn oxide material separating gas, liquid & solid material to it's pure form, Molten rock also resulting material swell. all of that resulting tremendously high pressure at planet's core. With those high pressure magma crack the mantle and looking the way to the surface. On the way to the surface magma keep burning all oxide particle they found at the path also make chemical reaction, forming a brand new particle and molecule.

At the time the magma reach surface it's erupted as Volcano, ejecting a lot of material include gas in which forming atmosphere. At lower temperature magma burn H & O to produce water. With water and other particle, oxidation occured at planet surface, from oxide material another chemical reaction occured randomly eventualy acid formed, with occurance of acid, amino molecule easily formed naturaly, than turn to yada yada yada, evolution, this and that, etc...etc.

This how our Earth Formed 4.57 billion years ago.

4. What do you beleive to be the oldest nationality on the planet?
China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and one of the oldest continuous civilizations. The oldest pre-civilized Neolithic cultures found in China to date are the Pengtoushan, the Jiahu, and the Peiligang, all dated to about 7000 BC. Pengtoushan has been difficult to date and has a date variance from 9000 BC to 5500 BC, but it was at this site that remains of domesticated rice dated at about 7000 BC were found. At Jiahu, some of the earliest evidence of rice cultivation was found. Another notable discovery at Jiahu was playable tonal flutes, dated around 7000 BC to 6600 BC. Peiligang was one of the earliest cultures in China to make pottery

Now, my theory:
I beleive God created the earth ABOUT 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the earth is NOT EVEN 6,000.
Think again, by the way 6000 years ago mean around 4000 BC. Well you miss archreology class for sure.

6. Does the moon move further away from the earth very year?
Sure
All planetary orbit move in eliptical path, so earth to moon distance are not the same throughout years.
Moon and earth bond by their gravity force, however all orbit movement will make centrifugal force in which it's make moon farther from earth.

So the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth into a higher orbit, and calculations (by e.g. NASA at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory [1]) suggest that this will continue for about two billion years. By that time, the Earth and Moon will become caught up in what are called a "spin-orbit resonance" in which the Moon will circle the Earth in about 47 days (currently 29 days) and both Moon and Earth will rotate around their axes in the same time, always facing each other with the same side. Beyond this, it is hard to tell what will happen to the Earth-Moon system.

eliotitus

May 27th, 2007, 10:54 AM

he denounced his own theory, stating that he could not discover the missing link people refused to accept his statement
seriously where do these things come from

His daughter Henrietta in 1922: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

In addition it wasn't even Darwins idea in the first place it was come up with in the 6th century BC by the Greek philosopher Anaximander.

pikatore

May 27th, 2007, 05:51 PM

edit: i'm an idiot for posting on the WRONG THREAD.

Slipnish

May 27th, 2007, 06:00 PM

I think both groups have the same flaw in their thinking. There is a difference between what you believe could be possible, and what you believe actually is.

Scientific evidences are not derived from what COULD be possible, but what is SUPPORTED by the evidence.

One can believe that invisible unicorns eat all the mail that gets lost. There is no basis on which to rest that belief.

I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what some fundamental creationists believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be a valid scientific explanation. [/qoute]

There is NO evidence to support an earth that is 10-12 thousand years old. There is a plethora to support one that is 4.5 BILLION yrs old. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[quote]For example, at one time "science" thought the earth was younger than is now widely accepted within the scientific community. The age had been calculated based on the cooling rate of the earth and it was thought that the only heat source that could affect the equation was from space. Later, radioactive isotopes within the earth's crust were found and this radically affected the equation. So, "science" can be wrong at times, but when it is wrong, it possible to find another valid scientific explanation to explain the discrepancy.

Not to say modern science can't be wrong, but nowadays we have multiple tests to determine accuracy, and more importantly, validity...

Likewise, I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what many scientific experts believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be some valid mystical explanation.

Nothing like magic to fil in the gaps...

Perhaps after "God" created the world as explained in Genesis, he used his supernatural powers to make the age of the earth different than what it would have been within the realms of natural linear time progression.

So God is lying to us with His own creation? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a theological basis.

Now, I have my own personal preference for which of these two ideas I believe to be more probable. But I won't deny the possibility that I *could be* wrong. Hopefully though, I'm at least able to "wear the glasses" of both sides as wanna references in the preceding post.

As a deist, I believe God did it, and sometimes, through science, we figure out how...

Other than that...well, I dunno.

"Run towards those who seek the answers. Run from those who find them."

This has always been one of my favorite quotes.:smitten:

Zhavric

June 3rd, 2007, 10:52 AM

I think both groups have the same flaw in their thinking. There is a difference between what you believe could be possible, and what you believe actually is.

I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what some fundamental creationists believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be a valid scientific explanation.

For example, at one time "science" thought the earth was younger than is now widely accepted within the scientific community. The age had been calculated based on the cooling rate of the earth and it was thought that the only heat source that could affect the equation was from space. Later, radioactive isotopes within the earth's crust were found and this radically affected the equation. So, "science" can be wrong at times, but when it is wrong, it possible to find another valid scientific explanation to explain the discrepancy.

Likewise, I believe it could be true that the age of the earth is what many scientific experts believe it is. I also believe that if it is true, that there might be some valid mystical explanation.

Perhaps after "God" created the world as explained in Genesis, he used his supernatural powers to make the age of the earth different than what it would have been within the realms of natural linear time progression.

Now, I have my own personal preference for which of these two ideas I believe to be more probable. But I won't deny the possibility that I *could be* wrong. Hopefully though, I'm at least able to "wear the glasses" of both sides as wanna references in the preceding post.

"Run towards those who seek the answers. Run from those who find them."

It amazes me how people can use this sort of reasoning with a straight face. Where else is it appropriate? Nowhere.

Think Zeus is equally likely as what we know about electrons and electricity? Think the sun is equally likely to be Apollo as it is a ball of nuclear fire?

No.

It's only the Christian propaganda machine that keeps this idiocy going for evolution. "It's just a theory. A theory." I'm so sick of it.

Ok so everyone is taking the mick out of the creationists. But almost half the American population believe in a young earth according to some surveys, and many are trying to get creationism put on school curriculums on a par with geology/evolution. So I dont think we can dismiss the creationists too lightly. Having said that, some people put a lot of effort on this thread into providing the basic evidence for the scientific view, which is very commendable.

By the way, I have looked at some of the young earth sites, and they do have a lot of pseudoscientific babble to back up their 'case'. They even have one or two qualified geologists! (Yes it pains me to say that)

My favourite one is the description of how Noah got 2 of every animal, including dinosaurs, into his boat.

Sigfried

July 22nd, 2010, 09:06 AM

My favourite one is the description of how Noah got 2 of every animal, including dinosaurs, into his boat.

Ya, relatively smart folks can make some pretty involved cases to support what they want to believe.

America has a lot of folks that either don't know any science, or know some and don't think it applies to what they have faith in, or have heard the apologetics and stopped right about there.

Mazz

September 17th, 2010, 09:32 AM

There are many reasons why I don't believe in evolution, here are some.

The Second Law of thermodynamics.
Entropy.
Lack of intermediate fossil evidence.
No need of hoaxes if it were true.
DNA and the information contained within it....where did it come from?
The irreducible complexity of life....even the cell itself!
The possibility of life coming from non-life to start with is an impossibilty.
That's for starters.

manc

September 17th, 2010, 10:21 AM

So, the gauntlet is down. Prepare for battle. Not sure I fancy the thermodynamics and entropy arguments.

What about lack of intermediary fossil evidence? What do you mean by that exactly? I would think there is tons of intermediary fossils. Have you looked, for example, at the fossils on the human line since we split with the chimp line 6 million years ago? There looks like plenty of intermediary fossils to me.

Here is one list

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

If its not evolution, god is having a major laugh at our expense.

mican333

September 17th, 2010, 10:29 AM

There are many reasons why I don't believe in evolution, here are some.

The Second Law of thermodynamics.
Entropy.

Relevance?

Lack of intermediate fossil evidence.

Relevance?

No need of hoaxes if it were true.

What hoaxes?

DNA and the information contained within it....where did it come from?

Relevance?

And what I mean by that is that the theory of evolution does not, as far as I know, address where the DNA comes from and therefore it cannot be faulted for failing to explain something that is not part of it.

The irreducible complexity of life....even the cell itself!

Relevance? (same reasoning as above)

The possibility of life coming from non-life to start with is an impossibilty.

Relevance (same as above)

And beyond that, your statement is not scientific fact.

Mazz

September 17th, 2010, 11:45 AM

I'm still learning to navigate this site, so be patient with me.
OK.....you question the relevance of some of the things I have listed.....you must be kidding!? How much understanding of evolution theory and science do you have?
Entropy means that everything in the Universe is decaying.....that is progression downhill, whereas the theory of evolution teaches that everything is getting better, animals are evolving into better, higher animals.

The fossil record. So a few teeth, bits of bones, parts of a few skeletons and a few skulls shows millions of years of transitioning from ape-like creatures to man?
The evidence shows that all the fossil are either apes or they are hominid...man, but nothing in between.

Hoaxes? Have you not heard of the famous Piltdown man just to name one.
As Arnold would say, ''I'll be back.''

It means that a cell has to have all it's parts in place or they won't work, it can't wait millions of years for evolution to change everything at the right time in the right way just by chance mutations. Which brings in DNA. For any cell to do what it has to do it has to have information which is in the DNA. It's the ''what came first the chicken or the egg?'' scenario. The information had to be in the DNA to 'tell' the cells what to do. So where did that information come from?

How come we can see? The eye is so complex no one has been able to make a camera as good. So how did animals see and survive before eyes were evolved? How about the lungs so we could breathe? Or the blood.....ah.....the blood....is amazing. It has a wonderful way of clotting when you bleed....how did that evolve?

The theory of evolution rely's on mistakes and mutations with no mind behind it's progress over those millions of years. That's more of a miracle than to believe that there is a God that created it all!!

manc

September 17th, 2010, 12:07 PM

Well my eyes are buggered. Cheers god.

But have you tried reading about how the eye evolved? Its quite interesting. From memory I think they evolved in 2 main ways.

to say they eye is too complex to have evolved is whats called an argument from incredulity.

100 plus years ago Darwin sketched out how the eye might have evolved

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

all of these steps can be seen in different organisms today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

The eye has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years by natural selection of gene mutations. It could happen theoretically in just 364,000 generations. We have only been building cameras for a few generations. Look at how different varieties of dogs have been bred from wolves in just a few thousand years. Evolution has been OBSERVED in the lab, in practice, it is a FACT. The theory that all life came from a common ancestor is supported by genetics. Do you know humans are genetically closer to chimps than one yeast variety is to another?

On the hominids, you need some evidence as to why you want to draw a line through the middle of the range and say there are apes and these are hominids. (In fact humans are apes) They show a gradual transition of all sorts of features. We can date them. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming hardly any scientists doubt it.

If there is a god he is having a giraffe.

Mazz

September 17th, 2010, 12:18 PM

Haha. I remember listening to a evolutionist scientist explain how the eye evolved and he gave so many 'probabilities' and 'maybe's' and 'could have's' in his theory on how they came to be the eyes we have today....and there are many different kinds of eyes today....the fly has a really fantastic focal system!!!....but he gave me no evidence or gradual step by step progress of the evolution of the eye. It was all assumptions....looking at eyes from other animals is not science....it is just seeing something that is similar.
Have you looked at the enormous number of changes needed just at the right time to produce an eye that can actually see the way we do! Your brain would have to evolve just right at the same time so it could process the information that the eye collects as it surveys the world around it.

mican333

September 17th, 2010, 12:49 PM

OK.....you question the relevance of some of the things I have listed.....you must be kidding!? How much understanding of evolution theory and science do you have?

More than you, apparently. Otherwise you'd know why I question the relevance of your issues.

Entropy means that everything in the Universe is decaying.....that is progression downhill, whereas the theory of evolution teaches that everything is getting better, animals are evolving into better, higher animals.

No, evolution does not teach that. Animals do not become "better" or "higher". They tend to become animals that are better suited to surviving in their environment.

Entropy in not way shows that such a thing cannot happen.

The fossil record. So a few teeth, bits of bones, parts of a few skeletons and a few skulls shows millions of years of transitioning from ape-like creatures to man?
The evidence shows that all the fossil are either apes or they are hominid...man, but nothing in between

You seem to be forwarding that we should have found something in between if something in between exists. That's not true at all. It's not like everything that ever lived left a fossil behind. A vast majority of things that lived in the past left no traces whatsoever.

Hoaxes? Have you not heard of the famous Piltdown man just to name one.
As Arnold would say, ''I'll be back.''

Haven't heard of it so I can't offer a rebuttal until you give me a bit more.

OK. You ask about the relevance of irreducible complexity.

It means that a cell has to have all it's parts in place or they won't work, it can't wait millions of years for evolution to change everything at the right time in the right way just by chance mutations.

Why not?

Which brings in DNA. For any cell to do what it has to do it has to have information which is in the DNA. It's the ''what came first the chicken or the egg?'' scenario. The information had to be in the DNA to 'tell' the cells what to do. So where did that information come from?

I don't know. But how does that counter the theory of evolution?

Since evolution does not address where the DNA came from, such issues are irrelevant.

How come we can see? The eye is so complex no one has been able to make a camera as good. So how did animals see and survive before eyes were evolved? How about the lungs so we could breathe? Or the blood.....ah.....the blood....is amazing. It has a wonderful way of clotting when you bleed....how did that evolve?

So you're telling me you don't know enough about the theory of evolution to know how the theory answers these questions?

Telling me what consider to be flaws in the evolutionary answers to these questions is a valid attack on evolution. Telling me that you don't know how evolution would answer these question only tells me you don't know much about the theory.

The theory of evolution rely's on mistakes and mutations with no mind behind it's progress over those millions of years. That's more of a miracle than to believe that there is a God that created it all!!

First off, the changes that happen to a species over time are generally not mutations. And they aren't "mistakes" either. It's just slight alterations in the genetics from generation to generation. I'm not exactly like either of my parents and the difference between me and them is not a mutation. And as it so happens, my parents are very healthy people so their healthy genetic structure was passed on to me which means, everything else being equal, I'm more likely to survive than most people and pass on my good health to future generations. It has nothing to do with mistakes or mutations.

I think you should get a better handle on the theory of evolution before you attack it.

Sigfried

September 17th, 2010, 01:01 PM

Haha. I remember listening to a evolutionist scientist explain how the eye evolved and he gave so many 'probabilities' and 'maybe's' and 'could have's' in his theory on how they came to be the eyes we have today....and there are many different kinds of eyes today....the fly has a really fantastic focal system!!!....but he gave me no evidence or gradual step by step progress of the evolution of the eye. It was all assumptions....looking at eyes from other animals is not science....it is just seeing something that is similar.

That is because a scientist does not know for a fact exactly how it happened. They have the intellectual honesty to simply say they can imagine how it occurs based on what we know rather than simply making a faith based claim.

You want easy and direct answers. Life will not provide them for you so you have found a book that claims to offer them directly. You don't trust anyone who is honest enough to say "I don't know."

What we do know is that it is impossible for them to have been created as is described in the bible because those eyes did not exist 100 million years ago and they do exist today. A process must have brought them about. What we don't know for certain exactly what steps that process took. What we can do is look how other less drastic traits develop and extrapolate from there.

Have you looked at the enormous number of changes needed just at the right time to produce an eye that can actually see the way we do! Your brain would have to evolve just right at the same time so it could process the information that the eye collects as it surveys the world around it.

You make the logical fallacy of assuming the end product.

We call the roll of a dice random because we cannot predict the outcome. The number of collisions and exact vertices of force used to roll it by hand are so complicated that they are beyond our ability to accurately predict, yet if we did know all the forces and angles of deflection it would be possible if very time consuming.

Yet when we roll the dice an outcome happens. Once it has happened you can either look back and say, the chances that this exact thing occurring are incredibly remote because of all the forces involved, yet its undeniable that it did turn out that way.

Such is evolution. The outcome we do have is but one of trillions of possible outcomes, yet only one of them can or will actually happen and that is the one we inevitably observe. Just because it was unlikely, does not mean it is impossible because one of the near infinite outcomes must happen. You have a fatalistic outlook that says the current way things are is the only way that they could be and any other variation would equal a kind of failure and so the system MUST produce what you observer. In truth it MUST not do anything, it simply can be shown to have done exactly what you observe.

I could have easily said of your belief that so many things have to happen exactly so for you to be debating me today, that God is impossible. You simply counter that god does whatever he wants because for him nothing is impossible. Well for the natural universe you, or your eyes are not impossible either. Indeed your existence proves it is not impossible.

Mazz

September 18th, 2010, 12:28 AM

''That is because a scientist does not know for a fact exactly how it happened. They have the intellectual honesty to simply say they can imagine how it occurs based on what we know rather than simply making a faith based claim.''

Do you know what you have just said? You have said that scientists don't know how the evolution of an eye happened.....yet they try and tell us that it did. No evidence.....that takes faith don't you think? Is it intellectually honest to say that the eye evolved without knowing how but insist it did anyway? No evidence. That is faith based.
And they do try to imagine how it occurred....in fact that is all they have with their faith....imagination. No evidence.

Sorry if my answers are in bits, haven't figured out yet how to go back to your comments without posting mine.

''You want easy and direct answers. Life will not provide them for you so you have found a book that claims to offer them directly. You don't trust anyone who is honest enough to say "I don't know." ''

Evolution has been treated as a fact for some 150 years, though it is still a theory, the thing I find difficult is their insistence that it is a fact and that it did actually happen and yet then say they don't know how! How then can it be a fact?
I trust anyone who has the honesty to say they don't know how life came to be the way it is today but I am open to believe the evidence.....and the evidence (or lack of it) teaches us that evolution could not and did not happen.

We have all heard of the ''missing links''. They are missing because they are not there. They never were. Darwins tree of life shows systematic gaps.....not just gaps here and there which we haven't found fossil evidence for yet.....but systematic gaps between all the main phyla....does that not show something to the mind that is open to see what this actually means?

Darwin himself had to admit that the fossil record....even in his day....did not support his theory.And even after over 100 years of fossil finds, those gaps are still there, even though the evolutionist is still desperately looking for them. But they won't find them.

Now my faith is not just in a book, it is in the God of that Book, it is a faith based on a real experience, a reality that is based in a relationship with Jesus Christ. I have met Him personally in a powerful way (no, not physically). So I know the One Who is not only within the Book but Who authored the Book.
My faith is built on solid rock, not on fossils that aren't there.

''What we do know is that it is impossible for them to have been created as is described in the bible because those eyes did not exist 100 million years ago and they do exist today. A process must have brought them about. What we don't know for certain exactly what steps that process took. What we can do is look how other less drastic traits develop and extrapolate from there.''

How do you know? How do you know those eyes weren't there 100 million years ago? Were you there? Were any of us? You are basing it all on assumptions....No evidence.
Yes, a process must have brought them about....they were created with all their components in place to work perfectly.
Again you say ''we don't know for certain''....you are still in the realm of faith.....and looking at other eyes does not prove that that is the way they were evolved. Similarity does not prove evolution.
There are people in Africa that have long necks.....did they evolve from a giraffe ancestor? Of course not, they made them long themselves. Giraffes didn't.
Similarity does not prove evolution.

You know Sigfried, the chances of evolution ever happening are so astronomically and mathematically great that they ARE impossible! There are not enough atoms in the Universe to match the odds of this Universe coming into existence let alone the variation of life that we see on our world. Even the existence of this planet is a mathematical impossibility. It is so finely tuned, that chance had absolutely nothing to do with it. Try throwing 1,000,000 7's with your dice and that still won't match the odds!! Not even once.

And I would like to ask you why you put so much faith in those scientists that don't know how it evolved and not in the God of this Universe Who created it miraculously from nothing.
You think that's absurd? How about saying that once there was nothing and then it suddenly exploded....and voila....a Universe!

SharmaK

September 18th, 2010, 12:38 AM

Manx:

I think you might be missing the point of evolution and science. There is a great deal of separate evidence from many scientific disciplines all corresponding and pointing to evolution being the best explanation as to how there are different animals and plants.

When science says something is true, you can guarantee that:

a: the parameters and scope of the statement is established.
b: the results fall within some statistical measure accuracy - the real world isn't black and white.
c: there are documented experiments to prove the result.
d: those experiments have been reproduced and the same conclusions drawn by other scientists, possibly even their competitors or enemies
e: there is a way to falsify conclusion as well a prove it.

You can take the same experimental results and evidence and examine it yourself. Have you done that?

There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work and in fact, it has been seen to work even within our lifetime. There has been no other corresponding theory that has produced any viable alternatives. This is what makes evolution the best explanation that we have.

Also, which part of evolution do you object to? DNA - do you believe that we have genes? Genetics - do you believe that a specific gene sequence corresponds to a physical part of an animal? Paleontology - do you believe that the fossil record can be grouped? Geology - do you believe that fossils can be grouped together in time? Atomic physics - do you believe that we can determine the age of something? Cosmology - do you believe that there are other stars similar to ours that could also possibly carry life?

The problem with using ancient religious texts to explain anything that science can cover better is that several thousand years ago, the authors didn't even know the earth was round, or that that the earth rotated around the sun, or that the stars were other suns; and to read them as literal is bad theology as well as bad science.

Also, to quote text you need to surround it with the QUOTE tag:

quote

manc

September 18th, 2010, 01:30 AM

First off, the changes that happen to a species over time are generally not mutations. And they aren't "mistakes" either. It's just slight alterations in the genetics from generation to generation. I'm not exactly like either of my parents and the difference between me and them is not a mutation. And as it so happens, my parents are very healthy people so their healthy genetic structure was passed on to me which means, everything else being equal, I'm more likely to survive than most people and pass on my good health to future generations. It has nothing to do with mistakes or mutations.

I think you should get a better handle on the theory of evolution before you attack it.

Just expanding on that...

Well, mutations is one of the main driving forces of evolution. Mutation is a major cause of increase in genetic variation. There is also recombination and gene flow. Other factors decrease genetic variation - natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift. Mutation creates new alleles.

all explained here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

theophilus

September 18th, 2010, 08:33 AM

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

all of these steps can be seen in different organisms today.If all of these steps still exist how can you know that the eye evolved in this way? Isn't it possible that different organisms were created with different ways to see?

On the hominids, you need some evidence as to why you want to draw a line through the middle of the range and say there are apes and these are hominids. (In fact humans are apes) They show a gradual transition of all sorts of features. We can date them. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming hardly any scientists doubt it. Not all scientists agree with your assessment of the evidence.

Extensive historical research has documented the fact that the so-called objective field of human evolution is highly subjective—and bias, fraud, and even forgery are all common (Judson 2004). The best known examples include Piltdown man, which has been proven to be a composite of a human skull and an ape jaw (Bergman 2003) and Hesperopithecus man, which turned out to be a pig’s tooth (Bergman 2006), but many other major examples exist.

a: the parameters and scope of the statement is established.
b: the results fall within some statistical measure accuracy - the real world isn't black and white.
c: there are documented experiments to prove the result.
d: those experiments have been reproduced and the same conclusions drawn by other scientists, possibly even their competitors or enemies
e: there is a way to falsify conclusion as well a prove it.

You can take the same experimental results and evidence and examine it yourself. Have you done that?But what kind of experiments can you perform to test evolution?

There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work and in fact, it has been seen to work even within our lifetime.That depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.

Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false.

When Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands, he correctly observed that some finches, which had been separated from other finches of the same species, had acquired distinctive characteristics (unusual beaks or feathers). He correctly concluded that these birds had evolved, in a particular sense of the word. They truly had undergone microevolution.

Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

SharmaK

September 18th, 2010, 09:18 AM

But what kind of experiments can you perform to test evolution?

Dog breeding is an example of how we can artificially select an animal for particular traits. Or one can examine the animals we have: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39156876/ns/technology_and_science-science/.

That depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.

If you accept that genes exist (which also implies that you believe that microscopes show small things, that the biochemistry for gene sequencing is also valid) then you have to also accept that there is a great deal in common between the genetic codes of all living things.

This is completely indisputable so long as you accept the gene sequences. These sequences also correlate to the physiological taxonomies and the fossil record.

So which part of the evidence do you not support:

1. That fossils are a true representation of animals long gone?
2. That the DNA from the fossils is not valid (even though it looks much like what we have today)?
3. That genes are not responsible for the phenotype, the physiological outcome, of an animal?
4. That different species have DNA in common?
5. Or the numerous examples described here (http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html) that detail examples found in the wild of 'macroevolution' and in particular there is a section of evolution above the level of 'species' in the Chlorella alga and the “species flock” of over 600 species of cichlid fish in Lake Victoria.

Pick something you don't like about the evidence and let's explore it.

Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution.
Creationism, intelligent design and religion are not science, and are therefore not valid alternative explanations to evolution. As Bill Maher is fond of saying, they didn't even know where the Sun went at night at the time, so I'm really not going to take their word that Adam/Eve and Noah is more than myth.

manc

September 18th, 2010, 10:37 AM

If all of these steps still exist how can you know that the eye evolved in this way? Isn't it possible that different organisms were created with different ways to see?

In a creationist sense you mean, there being no evolution? I don't consider that a remote possibility. Why do these stages exist? Well many animals exist which are similar to primitive ones that existed millions of years ago. Viruses are a good example, they also evolve very fast (getting resistant to drugs etc). Why do they exist? Because they have found an evolutionary niche, they are surviving well enough.

Think of evolution like branches on a tree. New forms appear, some die off, but some remain fairly unchanged.

Different animals evolved, and their eyes evolved in different ways, because they were on different evolutionary branches. The eye in fact evolved many times, at least 50 times, in different lineages, using the same basic genetic construction kits. Animals evolved with different eyes according to their habitat.

The first light receptors probably evolved before the brain. The brain and the eye would evolve in conjunction with each other.

Not all scientists agree with your assessment of the evidence.
Extensive historical research has documented the fact that the so-called objective field of human evolution is highly subjective—and bias, fraud, and even forgery are all common (Judson 2004). The best known examples include Piltdown man, which has been proven to be a composite of a human skull and an ape jaw (Bergman 2003) and Hesperopithecus man, which turned out to be a pig’s tooth (Bergman 2006), but many other major examples exist.

You quote Judson, but do you know his daughter is an evolutionary biologist? He is a historian of science and documented the rise of molecular biology.

Yes there have been occasional instances of fraud in science, but they are a drop in the ocean, whereas creation 'science' is all fraud. Answers in genesis would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I have looked the the site and it is full of claims, but they are not real. You need to research each one. Better still, just read some basic geology. Articles like the one you linked to you have to be very wary of. I know for a fact that the creationists have a long history of quoting scientists out of context, to distort their meaning. You need to source each quote or reference and check the original.

It is true that there are disagreements between palaeontologists and so on. This is because it is difficult to say whether a certain specimen is this species or that, when its incomplete and millions of years old. Its a detective puzzle. Studying it is like putting the pieces together of a jigsaw, and of course most animals just die and then vanish forever. We only find the rare survivors.

The article says creationists are often denied access to specimens. Well no surprise there, especially when it say that palaeontologists often wont even let other scientists near them for years. This is because they are very delicate and take years to fully analyse.

All this is nothing new. At university you are taught that there are different theories on this and that, and you weigh up the evidence and decide which seems most likely. Over the years more evidence comes in and we get a clearer picture.

The article quotes an evolutionary biologist saying that no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Well this may be true, it just means we arent sure, there are a few pieces missing. There may have been other species in between, or we may have been on a similar but parallel evoutionary branch.

Ok, lets look at a typical specimen. Homo erectus. Obviously he walked upright. His face was more ape-like than ours. He lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago, just before modern man. They were very strong, and may have been better at walking that we are. They came out of Africa and migrated around the world. They used primitive tools and may have made rafts. They lived in hunter-gatherer societies. They probably had a basic language but could not make the sounds we can. They made tools and hunted in groups. They probably had control of fire. Over the time they lived, their brains got bigger and they reached the same height as we are today. He may have lived alongside Homo Habilis (and maybe others we haven't discovered)

Human or ape? Where and why do you draw the line.

Mazz

September 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM

Shamark: ''There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work''

And there has not yet been any evidence that it does.''

We cannot see evolution at work because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen and even our famous atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted it has never been observed. All we see today are small changed within a species of animal that does not prove that changes can also create new species of animals. We can interbreed sheep, dogs, cows and horses but not outside of their own genus. You can cross a tiger with a lion and get a liger.....which in fact has happened, but never a cat with a dog, or a cow with a sheep.

I object with the whole concept of evolution. I don't see the evidence. There has not been any experiment that has proved that evolution works. The problem of course is that it supposedly takes so long.....but the fossil record is the best evidence we should have for gradual evolution over long periods of time.....but it's not there.

''Atomic physics - do you believe that we can determine the age of something? Cosmology - do you believe that there are other stars similar to ours that could also possibly carry life?''

I have heard this from scientists: ''We find the age of the rocks by the fossils that are in them......and we find the age of the fossils by the rocks.'' Does that not sound nonsensical to you? It is circular. But with all the dating methods that we have they all have to start with assumptions about the past, and if they are wrong, then so is the dating.
Are you aware that fossilization can actually take only a few years not millions?
That rocks can form quickly, actually over days not millions of years?
Mount St.Helens is a good example.
And the stars. Again, the scientists don't know how the solar system came into being. Yes, they have theories, they have models of what they think happened, but the more they look into the heavens...especially since the Hubble telescope....the more questions pop up rather than answers. They have found gas giants too close to stars that don't fit their theory of how these planetary systems form. The more they find out there, the less they really know about it.
And little is really known about gravity either. That does some weird things in space, warping it, curving it....I'v read up on astronomy for years and I find it fascinating....but I also believe that God created it all, because it is too vast and too finely tuned to be an accident from a singularity.....and ultimately from nothing! To me our Universe is awesome, because I believe in an awesome God.

SharmaK

September 18th, 2010, 12:30 PM

Shamark: ''There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work''

And there has not yet been any evidence that it does.''

Which evidence are you rejecting?

1. The fossil record?
2. Genetics?
3. Live examples of evolution at work? And which ones?
4. Science?

We cannot see evolution at work because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen and even our famous atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted it has never been observed. All we see today are small changed within a species of animal that does not prove that changes can also create new species of animals.

Of course no-one has observed it because there was no one there! But that's like saying that the light from stars can't be hundreds of light years away because we didn't exist when that light first left.

The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.

And much like how Newton's laws worked for hundreds of years until we got to sub-atomic particles, biology may still have a paradigm-shift but that model would still have to be a super-set of evolution - it must still explain all the things that evolution does. So even then, evolution doesn't get invalidated.

We can interbreed sheep, dogs, cows and horses but not outside of their own genus. You can cross a tiger with a lion and get a liger.....which in fact has happened, but never a cat with a dog, or a cow with a sheep.

Evolution isn't really about cross breeding. It's more like a branching tree beginning with single-celled creatures. It's a mistake to say that we evolved from chimps because we didn't. Instead, both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, hence they are our cousins not our progenitors.

After millions of years, the original common ancestor we had died out leaving just two separate species and even though we cannot see it directly, we can see it in the fossil record and the DNA, that there is are specific genes that we share that must have come from common ancestor.

The reason why you can cross tigers/lions/jarguar/leopards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid) is because they are in the same genus but you probably can't cross at a higher level because they have diverged too much. And that too is consistent with evolution - similar animals can co-breed (e.g. dogs) but dis-similar ones (e.g. dogs and cats) can't because their biology is too different.

And we keep discovering more and more intermediaries and more pieces of the puzzle is filled in.

Mazz

September 18th, 2010, 01:08 PM

''The problem with using ancient religious texts to explain anything that science can cover better is that several thousand years ago, the authors didn't even know the earth was round, or that that the earth rotated around the sun, or that the stars were other suns; and to read them as literal is bad theology as well as bad science.''

But you see, the author of the Bible DID know about His own creation and had Job write, ''He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.'' Job 26 v 7.
Hubble was the one that found that the Universe was expanding, Isaiah wrote thousands of years ago, ''Thus said God, the LORD, He who created the heavens, and STRETCHED THEM OUT...'' Isaiah 42 v 5a. Also David wrote in Psalms 104 v 1-2, ''..O LORD my God, you are very great.........who stretches out the heavens like a curtain.''
There is a strange substance to space, it isn't just empty nothingness and void, the gravity within space creates curves and bends the fabric of space itself. It also distorts time.
Compared to other religious literature, the Bible is quite believable when it comes to any area of science.

I'v already answered this. But how can I reject evidence of evolution that isn't there? The fossil record....I'v already spoken on, the genetic evidence....none there.....DNA has information that cannot arise by itself, it has to have a intelligence behind it.
You cannot have a code, a language, or information without an intelligent agent behind it.

''The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.''

Science is to find answers to the questions we have about the world around us, but to say that your explanation is actually fact has to have evidence....emperical evidence that it is so. There is none for evolution. The only other alternative is creation by a Supreme Being and for some that just isn't an option, so they keep bringing up theories to try and explain the world and how we got here and hold onto them for dear life trying to convince everyone else that evolution is scientifically proven, and it is most certainly not.
And everything that has been discovered in not way proves millions of years of progressive evolution, gradual change with billions of fossilised intermediates in rock layers all over the earth. THEY aren't there.

I haven't yet learned how to go back to your comments without losing what I'v written, so I'm answering in parts.

''...but that model would still have to be a super-set of evolution - it must still explain all the things that evolution does. So even then, evolution doesn't get invalidated.''

You use words like ''have to be'' and ''must still be''....which reveals the faith put into holding on to a theory that has no evidence.
It HAS to be the truth......it MUST be true......but you won't allow for it not to be, that there IS a God that created it all from nothing.....because that's what an Omnipotent God can do!

''The reason why you can cross tigers/lions/jarguar/leopards is because they are in the same genus but you probably can't cross at a higher level because they have diverged too much. And that too is consistent with evolution - similar animals can co-breed (e.g. dogs) but dis-similar ones (e.g. dogs and cats) can't because their biology is too different.''

You have used another word I hear often from evolutionists...''probably''.
You see you do not allow there to be another explanation for these animals not to be able to mate or interbreed. Maybe the reason is as simple as the fact that they weren't created to interbreed. They are incompatible.

You say that similar animals can co-breed...similar in which way....looks?...physical structure? What about the duck billed platypus? And I get excited at some of the strangest of animals, especially those that can change their colour or change their shape to look like other animals. There are some weird creatures in the seas off Indonesia. Some even look like plants!

''And we keep discovering more and more intermediaries and more pieces of the puzzle is filled in.''

How many? And are they true intermediaries or just wishful thinking on the part of the scientist? There should be BILLIONS buried in rock layers all over the world showing gradual.....even minute differences within species...and gradual changes from one to another. They just aren't there.

Theophilus: ''Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution. ''

Personally I don't like to use the word evolution at all. I prefer to call it natural selection, because that is what happened to the finches and other animals that have changes within their genus. Longer fur, longer legs, bigger ears, longer snouts, lighter or darker colouring etc.....these things can change over time as each generation comes along.

Good to have company on this side of the fence!

SharmaK

September 18th, 2010, 03:27 PM

Hopefully, I've answered all your points below. I pulled them from your last two sets of responses.

I have heard this from scientists: ''We find the age of the rocks by the fossils that are in them......and we

find the age of the fossils by the rocks.'' Does that not sound nonsensical to you? It is circular. But with

all the dating methods that we have they all have to start with assumptions about the past, and if they are

wrong, then so is the dating.

That's not the right way to look at it. The rocks are dated whether there are fossils or not - there's no need

to tie them together. So is the problem:

1. That you do not believe that rocks can be dated?
2. That the fossils found were not laid down along with the rock?
3. That fossils are not from animals?

Please accept or dispute the above.

Are you aware that fossilization can actually take only a few years not millions?
That rocks can form quickly, actually over days not millions of years?
Mount St.Helens is a good example.

I don't know where you picked this up from but the whole Mount St Helen's 'evidence' is full of holes and it's about the formation of coal not fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html vs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i1/mtsthelens.asp.

But even then, it has nothing to do with the how fossils that have actually been dated. There is no such claim that even if the coal were created quickly and/or recently that they had been dated as if they were from millions of years ago.

You must support or retract this claim or provide further evidence.

And the stars ... The more they find out there, the less they really know about it.

So you have described how science works. Science is always in flux but that is the strength of it - we never cling onto ideas once they have been falsified.

Please accept or argue that science is about creating models of the universe and that these models can be experimentally validated or are falsified with new evidence.

Compared to other religious literature, the Bible is quite believable when it comes to any area of science.

A cursory search through Google shows that everyone believes that their own religion is backed by science, or that science is discovering what had already been revealed.

Here's one from our Hindu friends (http://www.hinduismnet.com/hinduism_science.htm): which claims that
"Hinduism is probably the only religion which provides great support for science and scientific discoveries."

I'll leave it up to you to find a Hindu to argue that with since I believe in neither of your religions.

''The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.''

Science is to find answers to the questions we have about the world around us, but to say that your explanation is actually fact has to have evidence....emperical evidence that it is so.

There are different kinds of evidence - that which can be experienced directly and that which can be inferred. Different models will be created over time or they will be strengthened by further evidence.

You are also mixing the term fact (the evidence) and the model that attempt to explain the facts. Facts don't change - models do.

There is none for evolution
...
How many? And are they true intermediaries or just wishful thinking on the part of the scientist? There should be BILLIONS buried in rock layers all over the world showing gradual.....even minute differences within species...and gradual changes from one to another. They just aren't there.

1. We've already discussed the fossil record, which you have yet been able to refute, other than quoting a debunked article. Please answer those challenges above.
2. Genetics: You have not provided evidence to debunk genetics, other than to say God did it so are you saying that the genetic relationships between living animals is valid? But not for fossils?

We can discuss other evidence but we should get past these points first.

The only other alternative is creation by a Supreme Being

Nope, the only other alternative to science is more science! One shouldn't give up trying to understand the universe just when things get difficult.

And everything that has been discovered in not way proves millions of years of progressive evolution, gradual change with billions of fossilised intermediates in rock layers all over the earth. THEY aren't there.

There aren't billions of fossils because the conditions to have them created are limited. See

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/3/l_043_01.html for a quick explanation but basically:

1. The bones must not have been decomposed or otherwise damaged.
2. The bones must have fallen into a swamp or some other physical area that is condusive to fossilization.
3. It has to be discovered.

Please dispute or accept that this is how fossils can be formed and why they are rare.

You use words like ''have to be'' and ''must still be''....which reveals the faith put into holding on to a theory that has no evidence.
It HAS to be the truth......it MUST be true......but you won't allow for it not to be, that there IS a God that created it all from nothing.....because that's what an Omnipotent God can do!

Well, those words are used in the qualified sense that if an experiment worked in the past then it must work in the future. If a model is created that explains the experimental results then new evidence is either going to force us to discard the old model or create a new one. That is all - there's no emotional attachment to a particular theory.

You have used another word I hear often from evolutionists...''probably''.
You see you do not allow there to be another explanation for these animals not to be able to mate or interbreed. Maybe the reason is as simple as the fact that they weren't created to interbreed. They are incompatible.

I use the word "probably" because I'm not an expert on the matter - there's probably a biological explanation as to why species cannot cross-breed but I don't know it.

However, an explanation that will satisfy me will also have to be scientific. I cannot argue creationism because I know that deities are man-made creatures and religious texts are man-made impressions of their time; and since I also know that they did not possess the mathematics, modeling skills, scientific method, technology, not to mention religion getting in the way all the time; given all that, any explanation invoking deities is a priori false.

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 12:46 AM

''However, an explanation that will satisfy me will also have to be scientific. I cannot argue creationism because I know that deities are man-made creatures and religious texts are man-made impressions of their time; and since I also know that they did not possess the mathematics, modeling skills, scientific method, technology, not to mention religion getting in the way all the time; given all that, any explanation invoking deities is a priori false.''

To start off with you have a mind that won't accept there is a God and that everything came about by some natural mindless process. You start from a closed mind. This is first of all not logical as the fact that they found information within DNA that 'tells' the cells what to do has to be from an intelligent source. How do you account for this?
Genetics is not haphazard there is design and a purpose in the way things are, even those who have no scientific background can see clearly that the life we have on earth is extremely varied and all harmonises with each other.....even the flora on earth. Everything needs to be in it's place from the start to work atall. Life cannot wait for millions of years to evolve structures and sources of food to survive. They are either built to live and survive and have offspring that will also live and survive and have offspring, or they aren't.

Now to the fossils and the rocks. It has been shown that dating methods are built on assumptions to do with the past, but as we weren't there millions of years ago we cannot test whether things we think happened then actually did. You cannot test the past to prove that the past was the way it was.
The rock layers at Mount St. Helens are clearly shown in one cliff face....which shows differing layers and would seem to have been laid down over millions of years when in fact it only took 3 hours!!..due to the eruption. Dating methods do not harmonise with each other and are not to be trusted. This also goes for fossils. I could go into detail but I haven't the time this morning. Again, these dating methods rely on assumptions about the past, and if those assumptions are wrong, which I believe they are, then their dates are wrong too. They are not rock solid! (Excuse the pun!) :sly:

Whatever reason evolutionists give for the lack of fossil evidence are weak at best, and especially concerning the 'missing links'.... systematic missing links......just happen to be the ones that are in between creatures that are fully developed in their genus. Strange isn't it? With all the fossil evidence that we have there should be a significant percentage of intermediary fossils to show that evolution happened. They are still missing!! That is why evolutionists are still looking!

Evolutionists usually have a world view that rejects any possibility of there being a God, as you have adequately shown by your own admission, and start from assumptions and theories leaving any other possibility of the origins of life out of the picture, to be honest that is not scientific. Science is the searching, not making up stories about how they think it happened and then looking for the evidence to prove their theory. They start from their theory and work outward, rather than just looking at the evidence itself, uncoloured by their ungodly world view, to see what it shows. I believe there is enough evidence to show that the life we have on this earth today came about by a Supreme Being that designed and created it to be here. This earth is too finely tuned to be here by anything but a Divine Being, who's purpose was to create man to have a relationship with. Sadly man spurns the love that God has for them and tries to ignore all that He has made to prove that He doesn't exist. To be honest, I just don't understand why.
Revelation 4 v 11 says, ''You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.''

I just want to add one thing about modern fossils. Yes, things that end up fossilised.....like pickles :sly: and toy cars, and hats!! Unless these were around millions of years ago of course, these things only took a few years at least to fossilise and I have seen pictures of them too! You don't need millions of years, you just need the right conditions.

manc

September 19th, 2010, 03:15 AM

Mazz, lets get a couple of basic things straight.

The definition of evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is a fact and can be observed. For instance moths becoming darker.

A new species appearing is called speciation. This is when an species has diversified so much that we can define some members as a new species. Sometimes they cant breed with other members any more. We call it a new species because significant differences exist. Speciation has been observed too.

The overall picture, that all life on earth came from a common ancestor, is called evolution form a common ancestor. Obviously we didnt see this but there are million of pieces of evidence all pointing to that obvious conclusion.

Obviously you see rocks laid down in layers on top of each other. Now we see this around the world. Some have been uplifted or folded or worn don since they were formed.

But basically we can see a pattern. The oldest rocks are obviously the ones lowest down. The youngest at the top. This was first noticed in Europe in the 1600s, but it was William Smith around 1800 in England who first worked out the basic stratigraphy and made a geological map. He is now celebrated but at the time he died penniless. What he worked out is the PREDICTABILITY OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION. The fossils are always found in the same sequence. Certain fossils are always found in the same strata. Even earlier, Nicholas Steno had worked out the LAW OF SUPERPOSITION. The oldest rocks are at the bottom.

In the Grand Canyon you see rocks with Permian at the top, 250 million years old, going right down to PreCambrian at the bottom, 1.7 billion years old.

You say strata are dated from fossils, and fossils dated from strata. This is true to some extent, but the point above show that its the SEQUENCE which is important. You dont find the same fossils in Carboniferous Limestone and Cambrian rocks. The Carboniferous limestone is much younger, higher up the sequence, and consequently contains fossils which are more evolved. You are NEVER gonna find Neanderthal man in Cambrian rocks 500 myo, because he hadn't evolved! All you are gonna find in the deepest, ie oldest rocks, is very primitive things which evolved first, simple worms and sponges, or even simpler.

Through mapping, and observing which way the strata has dipped through movement, we can see how rocks in different places join up and are the same.

Now one thing thats interesting in the Grand Canyon example is the huge unconformity in the middle. You can see that some of the older rocks had tilted. Then they had worn away, and then new rocks laid down flat on top. The unconformity is clear and represents a massive period of erosion.

There are actually a number of unconformities, or disconformities, looking at the pictures.

The the history was something like this, a chain of mountains formed, there were worn down to a flat plain, then the sea encroached, then more layers of sediments were laid down on top, which eventually turned into the upper layers of rock. The Colorado river appeared very late on the scene, and carved out the canyon. Some uplift also took place around this time.

Answers in genesis writes about these unconformities, and acknowledges that they are periods of erosion, but just says that they happened very quickly. Basically it all happened in the Flood. Everything. The whole lot, deposition, uplift, erosion, further deposition. They talk about the Redwall Muav unconformity where there is no sign of erosion at one locality. It hardly seems significant. I guess it just means we cant detect any obvious sign of erosion. They say that elsewhere the two layers which are supposed to be millions of years apart seemingly interfinger. I dont know the reason for that off the top of my head. Sorry, I dont have time to research it in depth. I'm sure there is a simple explanation. What is THEIR explanation? "Instead, the actual observational evidence in the field supports the contention that continuous deposition occurred as the Redwall Limestone was deposited on top of the Muav Limestone, there being some interfingering and fluctuations during the postulated ‘changeover’ period. " So, casually, some interfingering. Pure science at its best. Not. I dont know if their claim can be taken seriously, it did not appear in a proper scientific publication. If it was a real problem some geologist would have jumped on it. It would be a fascinating thing to study. I think they probably just misidentified some bits of rock. It could be a post-depositional feature.

detailed rebuttal of the YEC Grand Canyon model here...

http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy.htm

The Redwall Limestones themselves are 535 feet thick, and formed in very calm conditions, not good for flood theory.

If you are interested in this I suggest you read some mainstream explanations to get a feel for them, if you only read the YEC pseudoscience you will get lost in a sea of garbage.

The Answers In Creation link above look like a must-read. This is a Christian site which rebuts YEC. The author of the rebuttal on the Grand Canyon does have a degree in geology.

At the contact is a formation called Temple. Here is a bit from the AIC rebuttal
Temple Butte Limestone

This limestone presents an interesting dilemma for the young earth model. It is composed of freshwater limestone in the east, and dolomite in the west. At best, the waters of the flood would be brackish, and not freshwater. The eastern end contains bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. Because of the freshwater origin of this limestone, it fails to fit into the young earth model.
One of the recurring items I run across in young earth literature, is that if something presents a problem, it is usually omitted. For instance, in the young earth book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, the discussion on the Temple Butte is on page 71. It is said to be a sandy, dolomitic limestone. Nothing is mentioned about the freshwater limestone, nor the fossil bony plates.

To start off with you have a mind that won't accept there is a God and that everything came about by some natural mindless process. You start from a closed mind.

The problem with inserting deities in science is that it is just not useful. You can't make any predictions based on this assumption, you can't experimentally test for it and you can't falsify it.

I also have not said that there are is no god. What I have said is that deities are concepts in people's heads - it's a human construction much like the concept of the British Empire. And in the same way that exists so do deities - you can believe in it, act according to what you believe are the principles behind it, fight for it, die for it. It's very real and I have to operate that there are people that behave as if it were real.

That said, when it comes to science it's all made up concepts in people's heads, it's all pretty much conjecture, it's unverifiable and it's usually wrong. Even where you might point out coincidences in your ancient books, it gives us nothing we can work on or model with or make predictions with or anything remotely useful. And all the religions and books say they are the truth, as do their priests, as do their billions of followers. But none of it is provable.

The difference between religious truth and scientific truth is that scientific theories can be proven by the worst enemies. Experiments are going to work no matter who does them.

Religion, creationism, intelligent design have been consistently debunked and shown to be false time and time again. Irreducible complexity is merely the lack of an explanation rather than an explanation in itself, as is claiming everything is done by a deity. Even it it were, the question remains, how? And how is it consistent with all the other experimental evidence.

In order for deities to insert themselves into the picture you will have to show the following:

1. deities exist outside of people's minds as a separate entity.
2. resolve the differences and conflicts between all the religions.
3. decide which religion is the 'truth'
4. prove that the holy books are indeed derived from said deities.
5. show connections between the holy books and scientific fact.
6. retract all the mistakes in the past
7. demonstrate that it is even useful to base science on a religion.

I'm not particularly closed minded and I really think it would be very cool if deities did exist, especially if they all existed and were battling it out in some weird part of the multi-verse for our souls and we were the main battleground in this vast universe.

But the fact remains that there is no real proof and there are better explanations as to why people need religions and deities and how humans keep coming up with supernatural explanation for things and need to believe them. And all these explanations from psychology to social anthropology are much more believable than the deities existing.

This is why deities aren't really worth debating against, the best you can do is to challenge established science and the counter is just better science, not a deity.

This is first of all not logical as the fact that they found information within DNA that 'tells' the cells what to do has to be from an intelligent source. How do you account for this?
Which facts would these be please?

Life cannot wait for millions of years to evolve structures and sources of food to survive. They are either built to live and survive and have offspring that will also live and survive and have offspring, or they aren't.

Everything evolve and changes at the same time. You can see this is Madagascar or Australia, where they have been physically isolated for thousands of years. All the animals are unique and not seen anywhere else. How do you explain that?

Now to the fossils and the rocks. It has been shown that dating methods are built on assumptions to do with the past, but as we weren't there millions of years ago we cannot test whether things we think happened then actually did.

There are many different ways to determine the past. A large number of them are based on the half-life of different elements. The table here (http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/HalfLife.ssp.log.html) reproduced below shows:

From "The Greatest Show on Earth" (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787), we can date with Carbon-14 for 5,730 years, Aluninium-626 for 740,000 all the way to 49,000,000,000 with the Rubidium-87 to Stronium decay.

So what assumptions are you disputing?

1. That the elements were there in the first place?
2. That radioactive decay really takes place?
3. That the dating methods are accurate?

How do you explain that the testing all correlates with each other when it comes to our geological record?

How do you explain that dendrochronology, the lining up of tree rings, also correlates with the dating methods?
<img src="http://imgur.com/5jA5M.png" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

Both of these are described well in Dawkin's book.

You cannot test the past to prove that the past was the way it was.
The rock layers at Mount St. Helens are clearly shown in one cliff face....which shows differing layers and would seem to have been laid down over millions of years when in fact it only took 3 hours!!..due to the eruption. Dating methods do not harmonise with each other and are not to be trusted. This also goes for fossils. I could go into detail but I haven't the time this morning. Again, these dating methods rely on assumptions about the past, and if those assumptions are wrong, which I believe they are, then their dates are wrong too. They are not rock solid! (Excuse the pun!) :sly:
Manx, all you are saying is that the radioactive dating doesn't correspond to the the layers and the fact that you know this is a testament to how true the scientific method is. You are actually being scientific in saying that they don't correlate and that has driven you to find out why: you're not telling me that God laid down the sediment in those three hours are you? Or are you going for the natural explanation that it was from a volcano.

That it looks like something made millions of years ago is coincidence and you are just saying that you cannot rely on eyesight alone and that you need another separate system, or preferably multiple systems to properly date it. Where is the evidence that it was laid down in three hours?

Whatever reason evolutionists give for the lack of fossil evidence are weak at best, and especially concerning the 'missing links'.... systematic missing links......just happen to be the ones that are in between creatures that are fully developed in their genus. Strange isn't it? With all the fossil evidence that we have there should be a significant percentage of intermediary fossils to show that evolution happened. They are still missing!! That is why evolutionists are still looking!

The problem with this line of argument is that whatever is found, technically has another two missing links. I know you want to find a smooth gradual progression from one species to another but you have already ignored the evidence I had shown before where that has happened.

Evolutionists usually have a world view that rejects any possibility of there being a God, as you have adequately shown by your own admission, and start from assumptions and theories leaving any other possibility of the origins of life out of the picture, to be honest that is not scientific. Science is the searching, not making up stories about how they think it happened and then looking for the evidence to prove their theory.

Dang, you took my argument against religion and creationism - I think that fits better on you than it does me.

]I just want to add one thing about modern fossils. Yes, things that end up fossilised.....like pickles :sly: and toy cars, and hats!! Unless these were around millions of years ago of course, these things only took a few years at least to fossilise and I have seen pictures of them too! You don't need millions of years, you just need the right conditions.

Again, you are looking at it in isolation of the dating methods. Please back this up with evidence dating methods don't work. Or do you believe that the dating methods work?

You have also not answered my other challenges:

1. Do you believe that the dating methods work?
2. Do you believe that the conditions for making fossils are rare?

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 09:43 AM

Manc: ''Mazz, lets get a couple of basic things straight.
The definition of evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is a fact and can be observed. For instance moths becoming darker. ''

Manc: Lets get a couple of things straight about evolution.....I was taught it at school and have read a lot, heard a lot....so I know what it is and what it isn't.
Evolution is basically Blob to Bob (no offence to Bob! :sly:) it is a gradual change of one animal into another over a long period of time. Darwins tree shows what this means......lower forms 'evolving' into higher forms and branching out into different animal groups. Evolutionists often like to make creationist look as though they don't know what they are talking about, a ploy that won't work with me because I have been initiated by other atheistic and theistic evolutionist on that issue. Another one is that I don't understand science. I don't understand what 'theory' means when I question that evolution is still only a theory and not fact. To evolutionists it is fact even though they still call it the Theory of evolution.....they have a way with words! But I can see through the smoke screen! ;):

The moth business for instance is an example of making the change in colour an evolutionistic trait, when in fact it was because the lighter moths, seen more clearly on the trees that they rested on were easy pray to birds while the darker variety survived being lunch. The moths, like the finches and flies with 6 wings etc. are not in any way proof of evolution. It is purely survival and natural selection.
And of course I have been told by certain evolutionists on other sites that natural selection is evolution. It is not.

''The overall picture, that all life on earth came from a common ancestor, is called evolution form a common ancestor. Obviously we didnt see this but there are million of pieces of evidence all pointing to that obvious conclusion.''

We didn't see it, you are right, but we don't see it today either and neither does the fossil evidence (the best we should have) show it.

Ah the Grand Canyon. Amazing place, it is one of those places I would like to visit but probably never will. I won't attempt to answer what you have written but will have a look at the links you provided. I am aware of Answers in Genesis explanation of how the Grand Canyon came about and it sounds quite plausible but I am willing to look at what Answers in Creation has to offer on this subject. It's always a good idea to know both sides of the argument so we can best answer. Will look at the other comment and will be back when I have time.

Sharmak: ''The problem with inserting deities in science is that it is just not useful. You can't make any predictions based on this assumption, you can't experimentally test for it and you can't falsify it.''

So we do away with God all together. No room in the Inn (so to speak).
Just because you can't scientifically test something does not mean it doesn't exist.
What about love, hate, sorrow? What about dreams? Ghosts? What about near death experiences? These things are very real in our lives, but do you dismiss them because they cannot be scientifically tested?

My faith is not based on an assumption that there is a God.....I KNOW there is a God because I have met Him. Not physically but in a powerfully spiritual way. Now do you believe that all that exists is physical? Or are you even open to the possibility that there is something beyond the physical? And what about miracles? What about those things that defy nature? Do you dismiss these also?
You see, it is not so easy to just brush God under the carpet, so to speak and act as if He isn't there. Because He is. The Bible is not a science text book but a lot of it makes sense in the scientific fields it touches on. I have mentioned a couple.

''I also have not said that there are is no god. What I have said is that deities are concepts in people's heads - it's a human construction much like the concept of the British Empire.''

This is a bit like me saying I never said that there are no fairies. What I said was that these fairies are people's heads. IN other words.....THEY DON'T EXIST.....except in someone's imagination. God does not live in our imaginations. If He did, my life would not be what it is today...changed. I couldn't have changed myself, but an amazing thing happened to me when I came to know Christ as my Savior. I became a new creature....a different person....than I was. I also saw the world differently.
Oh and just to let you know, that I actually still believed in evolution at that time, because it had been drummed into me at school that it was a proven fact and that the scientists had proved it was true. But as I began to read and study my Bible, as I grew in my walk with God I realised that what the Bible said and what evolution taught were not compatible. So I studied and read up alternate reasoning and explanations, but also saw for myself that there was no proof after all. All that I read (and I am an avid reader) on both sides made me realise that evolution hasn't got the evidence that it keeps telling us it had. As I looked around this world and the amazing creatures that inhabit our globe I saw creation so clearly. But before I jabber on with my life story......

''And all the religions and books say they are the truth, as do their priests, as do their billions of followers. But none of it is provable.''

Apart from prophecy being fulfilled, the Bible has been proved to be true in many ways by archaeology. Many places that are mentioned in the OT have been found.
On the other hand, the Book of Mormon has none.

manc

September 19th, 2010, 09:51 AM

Mazz, look it up if you dont believe me.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

3.
Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution.

Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
same link

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 09:52 AM

''Religion, creationism, intelligent design have been consistently debunked and shown to be false time and time again. Irreducible complexity is merely the lack of an explanation rather than an explanation in itself, as is claiming everything is done by a deity. Even it it were, the question remains, how? ''

Evolution has also been debunked, but of course those who hold to the theory tenaciously will not agree. (Some brave scientists have admitted the many problems with the theory!)
Irreducible complexity, by definition, means living creatures that cannot exist in any lower form of evolution because they would not survive the transition. Just because you haven't found an explanation doesn't mean there is one! Evolution is always looking for explanations of why things are the way they are but falling short of real evidence yet still hanging on to the theory until one day they do. But they never will. Meanwhile they reject any possibility whatsoever that a Divine Being was involved.

"Evolution is basically Blob to Bob (no offence to Bob! ) it is a gradual change of one animal into another over a long period of time."

Wrong. See above. This is not an acceptable scientific definition. I spelled out the differences. What you are talking about is speciation and common descent.

You have to get the definitions right first, otherwise we cant have a coherent argument.

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 10:14 AM

''I'm not particularly closed minded and I really think it would be very cool if deities did exist, especially if they all existed and were battling it out in some weird part of the multi-verse for our souls and we were the main battleground in this vast universe.''

The list of seven things you put before this quote would take a lot of explaining comprehensibly and would need more space than is on this screen, so I am not even going to attempt it.

It sounds like the world of Star Gate One! Iam so glad that that isn't the reality here! War Lords battling it out in the galaxy, out planet threatened by evil gods etc. etc. :coolsmiley: Wouldn't you rather believe in a God that loved you and wanted to have a relationship with you, Father to son?

Manc: ''You have to get the definitions right first, otherwise we cant have a coherent argument.''

Oh, so all those years at school and all those biology books, and all those science programs, and all that I have ever read, listened to and studied about evolution is wrong! Well, I guess, in that case, we can't have a coherent argument if you are going to deny what the scientific world.....and even Darwin.....called evolution.

Shamark: ''This is why deities aren't really worth debating against, the best you can do is to challenge established science and the counter is just better science, not a deity.''

Creationist scientists have challenged the theory of evolution but because God is involved in the explanation as well as the scientific proof against evolution they are poo poo'd.
It all boils down to a denial of the spiritual realm just because it isn't seen and can't be tested scientifically.

Concerning the information within DNA......I am surprised that you ask! Have you read nothing about the properties and workings of DNA?

manc

September 19th, 2010, 10:20 AM

"Evolutionists often like to make creationist look as though they don't know what they are talking about, a ploy that won't work with me because I have been initiated by other atheistic and theistic evolutionist on that issue. Another one is that I don't understand science. I don't understand what 'theory' means when I question that evolution is still only a theory and not fact. To evolutionists it is fact even though they still call it the Theory of evolution.....they have a way with words! But I can see through the smoke screen!"

No-one wants to make you look stupid. Far from it. YE Creationists who are genned up are like gold dust on forums like this! It gives us a reason to gen up ourselves.

In science, theory doesn't means the same as in day to day common language. In science, theory can mean something which the evidence for is overwhelming.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 10:22 AM

''Everything evolve and changes at the same time.''

So you are telling me that all the animals independent of each other and the fauna around them just happened to change at the same time so they could live in complete harmony and provide the right food source at the right time? That is more miraculous than believing that God created it all that way in the beginning!

For an example, we can look at the bee and the nectar within flowers. Did the plants just happen to evolve with this nectar just at the same time that the bees evolved into nectar collecting creatures? Amazing! I could give many more examples of this amazing feat that nature is supposed to accomplish just by chance but the mind boggles to think that people actually believe this!

manc

September 19th, 2010, 10:36 AM

Oh, so all those years at school and all those biology books, and all those science programs, and all that I have ever read, listened to and studied about evolution is wrong! Well, I guess, in that case, we can't have a coherent argument if you are going to deny what the scientific world.....and even Darwin.....called evolution.

I agree that the word is often used to describe the whole lot, speciation and a common ancestor. I do use it myself like that sometimes. But its important to at least be aware of the more specific definition. They you will understand why evolutionists can say evolution is a FACT. Because it is. You can see a change in the gene pool in the lab. This definition also highlights the essence of evolution in the broader sense, its simply down to ting genetic changes over time. These changes can be mutations or drift, they are then selected by nature.

The moth business for instance is an example of making the change in colour an evolutionistic trait, when in fact it was because the lighter moths, seen more clearly on the trees that they rested on were easy pray to birds while the darker variety survived being lunch. The moths, like the finches and flies with 6 wings etc. are not in any way proof of evolution. It is purely survival and natural selection.
And of course I have been told by certain evolutionists on other sites that natural selection is evolution. It is not.

This is evolution. The gene pool has changed. The moths are now darker. Natural selection is a part of the process of course. It killed off the light moths. This is exactly how evolution works in practice. Those with beneficial variants will survive. A colour change is just a small change of course, big changes take a long time usually. If a moth can change colour, its wings can get bigger or smaller, its body can get bigger, its legs can get stronger, its wings could shrink or slowly change into more legs.

Ok, explain to me my sometimes young dolphins are caught with small back flippers.

Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/

Yes, dolphins used to be dogs!

Mazz

September 19th, 2010, 11:50 AM

Manc: ''In science, theory doesn't means the same as in day to day common language. In science, theory can mean something which the evidence for is overwhelming.''

I'v had this explanation before with a theist of all people, but it just doesn't pass the test. A theory to become a fact needs overwhelming evidence.....or at least enough to actually show that it happened. We do not have it.

'Theory' in the dictionary is defined as ''1. a system of rules procedures and assumptions used to produce a result. 2. abstract knowledge or reasoning. 3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea. 4. an ideal or hypothetical situation. 5 a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity.6.a nontechnical name for hypothesis.

There doesn't seem to be any allowance for scientific theories being fact here. It is all hypothetical, abstract, ideas based on assumptions. And that is exactly what the theory of evolution is. I stick with the dictionary definition.

Manc: ''I agree that the word is often used to describe the whole lot, speciation and a common ancestor. I do use it myself like that sometimes. But its important to at least be aware of the more specific definition. They you will understand why evolutionists can say evolution is a FACT. ''

Why is that 'more specific definition' not in the dictionary?
And, no, your explanation doesn't change the fact that the lack of evidence for evolution is so overwhelming it cannot be called a fact.

''These changes can be mutations or drift, they are then selected by nature.''

You must be aware that most mutations are harmful so you need an awful lot of good ones to make any significant beneficial changes.
And how, exactly, does 'nature' select.....we are talking about choice here.....how does 'nature' do this?

''This is evolution. The gene pool has changed. The moths are now darker.''

No,it isn't. If there were no more lighter moths it could just as well mean that they died out due to the reason I gave earlier. That they became extinct if you will. Do you not at least think that this could be the reason? And in any case this does not show macro evolution. I accept that there are changes within a genus, but not, say, from dinosaurs to birds, or fish to land breathing mammals. We are talking about tremendous barriers which 'nature' has to cross to create one from the other. Chance mutations just isn't a plausible explanation. Chance never usually creates anything designed or orderly, chance usually creates chaos. Throw some pencils up in the air and see where they land.....a nice patern?....or a mess you have to clean up? Maybe not a good example but it's as impossible for those pens to make a lovely pattern on the floor as it is for a necessary part of a creature to be evolved gradually step by chance step. And each step must follow on to make the desired end result. How does 'nature' do all this to bring a desired and beneficial structure into being.....the air breathing lungs for instance?

''A colour change is just a small change of course, big changes take a long time usually. If a moth can change colour, its wings can get bigger or smaller, its body can get bigger, its legs can get stronger, its wings could shrink or slowly change into more legs. ''

''Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land''

I'v seen cats with two heads.....dead of course, they were in a museum somewhere. But there were lots of examples of mutations happening at birth. I don't think these were good ones...do you? I expect you have also heard of people who have six fingers instead of 5 (four and one thumb). This doesn't mean that humans will one day evolve and have six fingers, it just means that their was a mutation while the baby was forming in the womb. Of course we all know of other horror stories, but extra features like this does not mean the animal is evolving. In most if not all cases those animals would have had normal offspring and the extra appendages would not be passed on.
Most often, evolutionists only see what they want to see because they have this theory so fixed in their mind that they can't entertain any other explanation.

''Yes, dolphins used to be dogs!''
:grin: Good one! We end on a laugh! It's 20.50 here and I will have to leave now.
Back sometime tomorrow.

manc

September 19th, 2010, 12:04 PM

Just a quicky on the dolphin bit for now as I need to get off this computer before my back goes! The hind legs are a remnant of when dolphins were land animals with 4 legs. Their back legs have evolved away, but still there in the genetic code, so occasionally one is born with them by mistake. I guess you could say arent they just back flippers that used to exist, but you have to look at the overall picture. They breath air, they are mammals, they are intelligent and playful, like dogs (they didnt evolve literally from dogs, but a sort of common ancestor with dogs), the bones of their fins resemble the legs of land animals, their spines are more like land animals.

Various fossils have found that may be transition fossils, these would be amphibious mammals, think of a sort of warm blooded version of a crocodile.

As the tail evolved into a tool for swimming, and they stayed in water, the back legs became redundant.

In fact quite a few humans are born with vestigial tails . All of us have a coccyx, wisdom teeth, and an appendix, plus various other vestgial features. Human foetus' have tails.

Sigfried

September 19th, 2010, 01:36 PM

There doesn't seem to be any allowance for scientific theories being fact here. It is all hypothetical, abstract, ideas based on assumptions. And that is exactly what the theory of evolution is. I stick with the dictionary definition.

All knowledge is based on some assumptions. All of your claims are based on the assumption that the bible is accurate for instance. Evolution is based on the assumption that the evidence we find in the earth occurred naturally and that the fundamental laws of matter have not changed in that time.

Since our observations of the world tend to bare out these assumptions we tend to accept them without serious challenge.

Evolution is an ongoing field of study and clearly there is a great deal more to learn about how life functions and how evolution can happen. What is in far less dispute is that some process like evolution must have occurred because it is the best current explanation of the evidence we have and there are no serious roadblocks that show it to be impossible.

It is thus a Theory because it is not reproducible through experimentation but remains the best explanation for the evidence we have.

''These changes can be mutations or drift, they are then selected by nature.''

You must be aware that most mutations are harmful so you need an awful lot of good ones to make any significant beneficial changes.

Most mutations are indeed harmful however it is highly unlikely that harmful mutations will survive or be carried on to offspring. Beneficial mutations on the other hand are highly likely to be propagated to offspring. So while bad mutations are more common, they are quickly eliminated as where the rare but beneficial mutations stick around and flourish. So even though the bad mutations are more common in the short term, if you observe over a long term you will see far more evidence of the good mutations. This is especially true if you are taking a sample of a much larger population (which is exactly what the earth's fossil record is, a small and somewhat random sample of great spans of life's history on earth.) Not surprisingly it shows many examples of good adaptive mutation and very few examples of harmful mutation.

And how, exactly, does 'nature' select.....we are talking about choice here.....how does 'nature' do this?

It isn't choice at all, it is happenstance. Should the world grow cold, then only those organisms adaptable to surviving in cold will survive. Those best adapted will become the most common. Over time selection will favor mutations that aid in survival in that climate and work against those that don't. Should the world grow warm then the opposite will occur. There is no design or plan at work except to say that the base mechanism of life favors the ability to adopt adaptive change. However even that is selection. A non changing form of life would die in a changing environment. The only type of life that is possible on earth is one that is able to evolve.

''This is evolution. The gene pool has changed. The moths are now darker.''

No,it isn't. If there were no more lighter moths it could just as well mean that they died out due to the reason I gave earlier. That they became extinct if you will. Do you not at least think that this could be the reason?

It is evolution. That is how evolution works. Those traits that survive continue, and those that do not go away.

And in any case this does not show macro evolution.

Macro evolution is simply micro evolution happening over and over again millions and billions of times. Get a piece of paper. Make one pencil mark. Is it the same or different? Make another. Is it now more the same or more different. Repeat this process 100 trillion times with a billion pieces of paper. Is it a micro change or a macro change?

The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is how many times you do it.

I accept that there are changes within a genus, but not, say, from dinosaurs to birds, or fish to land breathing mammals. We are talking about tremendous barriers which 'nature' has to cross to create one from the other.

You are like a man looking at a mountain and saying, It is so huge how could anyone ever cross such a thing.

The simple answer from your guide is "one step at a time"

One change does not turn a dinosaur into a chicken. It takes billions of changes and a process that weeds out any change that fails to thrive in the world in which it lives.

Chance mutations just isn't a plausible explanation. Chance never usually creates anything designed or orderly, chance usually creates chaos.

Chance is a strawman. Very little of anything is chance. Chance is just what you call things you don't know how to predict. It isn't chance that predicts the outcome of a roulette wheel, but we call it that because no one can measure all the forces involved and predict the outcome. The moment you say "random" or "chance" in an argument against evolution, you have misunderstood how it works. Random in evolution really just means "complicated and hard to predict."

Nature is not random. Nature rewards that which survives and punishes that which fails to survive. Mutations are filtered through the current environmental conditions on earth. Its like putting round balls and square cubes into a cylinder with round holes and then spinning it. It looks like complete chaos in a given instant, but over time all the round balls fall out and all the cubes stay in and suddenly it looks like perfect order.

The great thing about life is that it doesn't have a single design or a perfect form. It is an ever changing and experimenting system that is rewarded when it works and punished when it fails. The result is that no matter how things change (so long as it happens slowly enough) life will find a way to continue to exist by virtue of its ability to change.

The only way evolution would be "random" is if the world had infinite resources and no conditions dangerous to any type of life. Then there would be no check on the outcomes of "random" mutations. But the world is not like that. there are hard and fast rules (even if they change) that force life into narrow acceptable channels of functional arrangement.

Throw some pencils up in the air and see where they land.....a nice patern?....or a mess you have to clean up?

They all fall down, because gravity drives them down. Indeed thy all seek the lowest available landing spot which they have enough energy to reach. There is in-fact a very specific pattern to how they fall and where they land, it simply is meaningless to you as a human being. The falling of the pencils is in fact not random in any way at all, you simply don't have the means to predict how it will happen.

Nature will in fact create very detailed patterns without the aid of any mind at work. Crystals in rocks fascinate us because they seem so ordered compared to other stones. But if you looked in an electron microscope you would see that all matter forms in an ordered way of some sort. Whether we find it pleasing or not is another question. Humans tend to like order that is simple enough for our brains to easily recognize and reproduce. That is our limitation, not that of the universe which adopts patters far beyond our comprehension.

You seem to seek a world that is easy for you to understand one that follows a more simple path that reality takes. It is my opinion that religion is often an attempt to simplify that which is complicated for the sake of human aesthetic.

And each step must follow on to make the desired end result. How does 'nature' do all this to bring a desired and beneficial structure into being.....the air breathing lungs for instance?

There is no "desired result." The only results that persist are the ones that function and reproduce. Since lungs have proven effective they continue to exist. Should our air become so polluted that lungs no longer work for survival than all things with lungs will perish and things that gain oxygen some other way will thrive. And should a mutation arise that allows an organism to make its own oxygen it may well flourish and dominate the earth in time. It will not be according to any plan other than the simple plan of life to be adaptable. but as I have said, that is the only kind of life that could exist in a place that changes.

[/COLOR]''A colour change is just a small change of course, big changes take a long time usually. If a moth can change colour, its wings can get bigger or smaller, its body can get bigger, its legs can get stronger, its wings could shrink or slowly change into more legs. ''

But it is still a moth![COLOR="Silver"]

A moth is not a butterfly is it? Is a caterpillar a moth? What we name things is just our way of ordering and communicating. Change it enough and we will give it a different name.

Mazz

September 20th, 2010, 12:35 AM

Manc: ''Just a quicky on the dolphin bit for now as I need to get off this computer before my back goes! The hind legs are a remnant of when dolphins were land animals with 4 legs. Their back legs have evolved away, but still there in the genetic code, so occasionally one is born with them by mistake. I guess you could say arent they just back flippers that used to exist, but you have to look at the overall picture. ''

This will have to be quick too because Monday is a fairly busy day for me, but I just wanted to answer this point.

I have already spoken about added digits.....as for example six fingers instead of five. This growth is abnormal.....it does not mean that we once had six fingers during our supposed evolutionary process. That goes for any extra appendages, they are mutations that are abnormal, and putting aside evolutionary assumptions, the dolphins extra limbs could also be described as abnormal growth during its development before birth. You would not assume that cats had two heads in their distant past because we have those kind of mutations today would you? ;):

PS: I still haven't had time to look at the Grand Canyon links you gave me so I shall get back to you about those too!

Have you ever read of a book called ''Thousands.....not billions'', by Dr. Don DeYoung?
He is a physics professor at Grace College, Winona Lake, IN. I guess he must know a bit about the subject of the Grand Canyon which he speaks about in several places in his book. It is fairly technical so it takes more than one reading to grasp what he is saying. But he does talk about dating methods including half life's, radiohalos, metamorphic rocks and other geological features. I find science fascinating.

Mazz

September 20th, 2010, 06:53 AM

Manc: I'v looked at two of the links you gave me to do with the Grand Canyon, there is much there to look at and study and as geology was never my strongest subject I can't say anything about it until I have made full study of it. That could takes weeks! All I can say is, that what I have heard and read by other scientists, who are fully qualified in this field and believe in a young earth, I find quite convincing.

Here is a link of one of those qualified who was a professor of geology. I say 'was' because he is now dead.

Sigfried: ''Evolution is an ongoing field of study and clearly there is a great deal more to learn about how life functions and how evolution can happen. What is in far less dispute is that some process like evolution must have occurred because it is the best current explanation of the evidence we have and there are no serious roadblocks that show it to be impossible.''

I take a lot of notice of words, because they reveal such a lot! What I fond interesting is that you said ''how evolution can happen'' and not ''how evolution happened''. There is a big difference from one to the other. One suggests it 'could' happen, the other states it 'has happened'. I find the words evolutionists use reveal a lot about what they really believe. And I don't find that confidence, which they should have if they really do have that evidence for evolution that proves it 'happened' and that it is fact and not a 'maybe it did'.

Again the words ''evolution must have occurred'' suggests doubt as to whether it did but you believe it anyway, because....well....it MUST HAVE happened. Instead of the more confident ''evolution has occurred''. And then it is followed by ''it is the best explanation of the evidence'' but we know that even the evidence lacks any serious proof of evolution at all. The explanation in itself lacks conviction in it's rock solid reality. (Excuse the pun again!) ;):

I guess without a brain there can be no actual mindful decision by nature to do what evolution is supposed to do.....so how does 'nature' know how and when to mutate to benefit the animal in question? How does it know what will be at the end of it's evolutionary progress right at the beginning with the first step? Does nature know that at the beginning of the simplest changes say in fish, that eventually it's gills are going to change into lungs so it can walk on land and breathe? Do you understand what I am trying to say? The end product of said evolution has to be in focus for the right steps to be taken by 'nature' to produce the end result.
Can simple mutations do that? And what happens during the millions of years that it took, step by step, to change gills into lungs? Did the fish get the fully formed lungs first before the gills were useless? Because if not, the fish would drown.
There are a lot of structures in creatures that just can't be used without being fully formed at the start.
We have mentioned irreducible complexity, scientists recognise that this is a very real problem for the theory of evolution. It is not something they can just brush under the carpet. That is why so many scientists are joining the ID movement. They recognise that evolution on it's own is not a valid explanation for so many creatures in our world.
Have you heard of the famous Bombardier Beetle? It is a classic example. There are many more.

Sigfried: ''Over time selection will favor mutations that aid in survival in that climate and work against those that don't.''

Selection? I guess you mean natural selection. But didn't you say ''It isn't choice at all, it is happen stance.'' Now again I look at these words and they appear to me to contradict what you said earlier. Is it selection? Choice? Or is it happen stance or chance? So what chooses? What selects? How?

''It is evolution. That is how evolution works. Those traits that survive continue, and those that do not go away.''

That only works if the traits are already present in the gene pool. Which it would be if the creature was created with all those traits present at the beginning. But evolution suggests that the traits are somehow created by 'nature' through mutations. DNA and the information within it is what determines what an animal is.
Dogs have 'dog' DNA and cats have 'cat' DNA, to put it simply. But the kind of information that evolution demands from the lowest form of life to the millions of life forms we have on earth today requires that the information within the DNA be created as well. But you cannot get new information within DNA. It has to be there to begin with and it has to contain that certain information for one particular animal. DNA cannot change it's message to make cats instead of dogs whether you have billions or trillions of years help. It just doesn't happen.

Natural selection within a species that has all the info within it's DNA does happen, but this is always a LOSS of information, never a gain.

''Macro evolution is simply micro evolution happening over and over again millions and billions of times. Get a piece of paper. Make one pencil mark. Is it the same or different? Make another. Is it now more the same or more different. Repeat this process 100 trillion times with a billion pieces of paper. Is it a micro change or a macro change?''

Bad example. You see, my pencil mark has a mind behind it. It may take me a long time but I can make as many marks looking the same (because I chose to do so) or I could change it at WILL. Does evolution have a will? Does it have a mind behind it? NO.

''The moment you say "random" or "chance" in an argument against evolution, you have misunderstood how it works. Random in evolution really just means "complicated and hard to predict." ''

Funny, but I'm sure you said it was ''happen stance'', you made a point of it, and I said that happen stance (in the dictionary) means CHANCE. Now you are saying it is not. Is it no wonder that I question what evolutionists say? They contradict themselves.

''Nature is not random. Nature rewards that which survives and punishes that which fails to survive.''

Again you say that it is not random....that means ''purposeless'' ''not following any pre-arranged order.'' Then how can evolution work like that? Not having any purpose when it begins it's step by step changes, and having no pre-arranged result at the end. Sounds a bit haphazard to me.

Also now we have a ''rewards'' and ''punishment'' system in place as well.
How does it ''choose''....randomly of course....which one? Sorry but this all sounds like words to me with no apparent substance in reality.:huh:

''The great thing about life is that it doesn't have a single design or a perfect form.''

You are joking! :coolsmiley:
When I look at some of the exquisite creatures in our world today, I see much design and some forms that look near perfect, (except when I look in the mirror of course!!);):
Some creatures are so beautifully made....you mentioned butterflies...look at the patterns on their wings. Look at the colours on the paradise birds or the amazing creatures that live in the deep oceans of the world. I am filled with awe at some of these lovely creatures. I watch a lot of Nat. Geog. programmes and I can only marvel at the wonder of Gods creation. I wish others could see what I see.

I have to go now, may be back later.

mican333

September 20th, 2010, 07:31 AM

I guess without a brain there can be no actual mindful decision by nature to do what evolution is supposed to do.....so how does 'nature' know how and when to mutate to benefit the animal in question?

It doesn't. As he said, it's happenstance. The mutations that are beneficial to a species are the ones that tend to be passed on to following generations and the mutations that are harmful tend to die off with the creature who has that mutation.

How does it know what will be at the end of it's evolutionary progress right at the beginning with the first step?

It doesn't.

Does nature know that at the beginning of the simplest changes say in fish, that eventually it's gills are going to change into lungs so it can walk on land and breathe? Do you understand what I am trying to say? The end product of said evolution has to be in focus for the right steps to be taken by 'nature' to produce the end result.

No it doesn't. The river that made the Grand Canyon didn't design the canyon before it created the canyon. And likewise nature doesn't have to design anything before it can make what it does. Just like the river slowly cutting out a canyon, nature just does what it does and whatever the results are, they are.

Sigfried

September 20th, 2010, 08:17 AM

All I can say is, that what I have heard and read by other scientists, who are fully qualified in this field and believe in a young earth, I find quite convincing.

Here is a link of one of those qualified who was a professor of geology. I say 'was' because he is now dead.

http://www.icr.org/article/1095/275/

Not only is the gentleman dead, he is widely discredited as a scientist. He himself says in the quote that the foremost reason he does not support an old earth is because of his reading of the bible which shows a greatly non-scientific bias.

Morris received criticism from the scientific community for his philosophy of science, and his representation of evolution as a complete religious system has been called a straw man.[5] In particular, Massimo Pigliucci criticized Morris' omission of material that interferes with his "mission" and "beliefs".[6] Pigliucci also criticized Morris' intrepretation of thermodynamics.[7] Morris' position had also been the subject of debate among Evangelical scholars of the Old Testament and among Evangelicals working in various fields of science. Morris also strongly defended the use of the King James Bible.[8]
In Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), Morris hoped to "open the minds and hearts of young people to the true Biblical cosmology." T.E. Fenton, Professor of Agronomy at Iowa State University, wrote "scientific value of the book is nil; the author selectively chooses the areas of science that he accepts and rejects other areas of accepted science".[9]
Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael. David Vogel, Professor of Biology at Creighton University, reviewed the book explaining "his theology is shallow; his exegesis is maddening; his science is wrong; and he tops it off by offending millions of Bible-believing Christians who also accept evolution".[10]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Henry M. Morris
His book Scientific Creationism (1974 and 1984), according to Herman Kirkpatrick, "is not very convincing evidence to support the recent creation of the earth".[11] Thomas Wheeler, Professor of biochemistry at University of Louisville, reviewed the second edition and concluded, "Scientific Creationism cannot be recommended for use in public school classes, or indeed anyone interested in learning science".[12] Wheeler cited Morris misunderstanding of science, appeals to religious prejudice, misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, omission of opposing science, double standards in evidence, "absurd conclusions," inappropriate and misidentified sources, attacks on scientists, using discredited arguments, and "silly calculations".[5]
Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources.[13] For example, in one instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago."[13] Geologist John G. Solum has criticized the work for being inaccurate.[14] Solum noted "Whitcomb and Morris are mistaken about the nature of the rocks associated with thrust faults. Their claim about fossils is based on a YEC misunderstanding of how rocks are dated relative to each other, and how the geologic column was constructed."[14] In fact Solum noted, "Morris' explanation of relative dating is not 'somewhat oversimplified' it is entirely incorrect."[14]

I hope I am allowed to post this.

Of course, any and all evidence is good. In future you should include a small expert so if someone doesn't want to hit the link they know what the fellow was arguing.

I take a lot of notice of words, because they reveal such a lot! What I fond interesting is that you said ''how evolution can happen'' and not ''how evolution happened''. There is a big difference from one to the other. One suggests it 'could' happen, the other states it 'has happened'. I find the words evolutionists use reveal a lot about what they really believe. And I don't find that confidence, which they should have if they really do have that evidence for evolution that proves it 'happened' and that it is fact and not a 'maybe it did'.

Again, you have a mindset that there must be absolute authority and certainty for any truth claim. That is not a scientific mindset, it is a dogmatic mindset that remains closed to new information. You fall to the appeal of those who are arrogant enough to claim absolute truth. You are saying you would trust science more if it left no room for any doubt, but that would be a betrayal of what science is, and exploration and discovery of truth through experimentation and reasoning.

What we do know for a fact is that life on earth changed dramatically and fairly steadily over the course of billions of years. Many of the species found today did not exist only a million years ago and many that existed a million years ago did not exist a million years before that and so on reaching back for billions of years.

We know that mutation and genetic recombination can create new traits and we know that nature will kill off species that have traits that inhibit survival and that nature rewards traits that favor survival. These facts leave us with a fairly direct conclusion that the process of change is what led to the change in the fauna of life on the planet.

I'm not sure what your brand of belief is exactly but I doubt it can accurately account for the very real information that we have about the earths history and that of life on earth nearly as well as the theory of evolution does.

Again the words ''evolution must have occurred'' suggests doubt as to whether it did but you believe it anyway, because....well....it MUST HAVE happened. Instead of the more confident ''evolution has occurred''. And then it is followed by ''it is the best explanation of the evidence'' but we know that even the evidence lacks any serious proof of evolution at all. The explanation in itself lacks conviction in it's rock solid reality. (Excuse the pun again!) ;):

Puns are encouraged :) You misunderstand the value of science and of doubt. If I can to you and swore on a bible with great conviction that I has the ghost of Napoleon would that give you great confidence it was true? Would you trust my judgement as a person in general at that point because of my great assuredness?

I distrust anyone who claims to know anything indirectly with absolute certainty. It tends to show they are unrealistic in the bounds of their own knowledge. "Belief" is rubbish. It is the notion that because your brain holds an idea that it must be true. We know for a fact many peoples brains hold ideas that are false. You "believe" in a religion and yet billions of people "believe" in different religions all holding that totally different claims are most certainly and without a doubt true. All but at least a portion of you are mistaken in your beliefs. I suspect that all of you are mistaken. Belief means nothing. Evidence and experimentation are the only reliable means of making good judgement and the evidence is not always entirely complete and some experiments are nearly impossible. When this is the case it leaves room for doubt.

Evolution may be wrong, but until someone comes up with a better explanation for the evidence we have, it remains far and away the best explanation for how life changed from very simple forms to very complicated ones over billions of years.

The Christian whole earth creationist perspective meshes very poorly with the physical evidence we have, often in direct and impossible contradiction with it. That is why only a small handful who are familiar with the evidence support that notion and those who do tend to misread and misunderstand the science.

I guess without a brain there can be no actual mindful decision by nature to do what evolution is supposed to do.....so how does 'nature' know how and when to mutate to benefit the animal in question?

It doesn't. Nature is not a unified force or mind. It fumbles in the dark and finds the exit by trial and error. A river does not plan its course to the sea, yet nearly all rivers reach the sea because circumstance dictates they must do so. They simply follow the path of least resistance from their starting point to their end point. Life operates much the same. It expands (change) and runes into barriers (environment) which channels it (the species we observe through history).

How does it know what will be at the end of it's evolutionary progress right at the beginning with the first step?

It does not. Life/nature has no plan. There is no forethought, only experiment and failure. What life does have is a means to record that which is successful and "forget" that which is a failure. And that is all that is needed to solve problems. It is not the most effective way, but it inevitably works.

Does nature know that at the beginning of the simplest changes say in fish, that eventually it's gills are going to change into lungs so it can walk on land and breathe?

No it doesn't. Nor does it need to.

Do you understand what I am trying to say? The end product of said evolution has to be in focus for the right steps to be taken by 'nature' to produce the end result.

I understand what you are saying and you are mistaken in your whole idea of how evolution operates. It is not intentional, it is not planned, the life we have today is not "the best" life possible. Humans are not any kind of ultimate perfection of a perfect plan. Life is a mess, haphazard, unplanned, sprawling endeavorer that fails more often than it succeeds but has a mechanism that destroys bad experiments and preserves good ones so that over eons and countless iterations it slowly becomes better and better at surviving in the current environment.

Life itself and the history of life we have recorded in the fossil record shows exactly that. Not a well planned efficient system of perfect creations, but an ever changing, ever adapting mass of ever altering strategies for survival.

Can simple mutations do that? And what happens during the millions of years that it took, step by step, to change gills into lungs? Did the fish get the fully formed lungs first before the gills were useless? Because if not, the fish would drown. There are a lot of structures in creatures that just can't be used without being fully formed at the start.

Yes, transitional creatures tend to have both lungs and gills as well as the ability to breathe through their skin as many smaller life forms can do. Indeed the difference between gills and lungs is mostly structural and positional. They idea is essentially the same. It is a surface over which an oxygen medium passes collecting the oxygen in the blood and taking it to other parts of the body. Weather it uses water or air as a medium of transport is less of a change than having the apparatus itself.

Likely early air breathers were able to use their gills for both purposes but some evolved more protected gills that were better suited to air breathing giving them access to better feeding or less predation which led to their proliferation and later diversification.

Many animals today use both or all three means of respiration.

We have mentioned irreducible complexity, scientists recognize that this is a very real problem for the theory of evolution. It is not something they can just brush under the carpet. That is why so many scientists are joining the ID movement. They recognise that evolution on it's own is not a valid explanation for so many creatures in our world.

You are deluded as to what scientists are doing. Very few scientists are members of the Intelligent Design movement. Complexity is not a problem for evolution and no one tries to brush it under the carpet. You are simply not knowledgeable enough to understand how evolution is thought to operate. A system of repeated change with a mechanism for positive and negative reinforcement and a system for recording success can lead to extreme complexity given sufficient time and scope.

Have you heard of the famous Bombardier Beetle? It is a classic example. There are many more.

A classic example of what?

Selection? I guess you mean natural selection. But didn't you say ''It isn't choice at all, it is happen stance.'' Now again I look at these words and they appear to me to contradict what you said earlier. Is it selection? Choice? Or is it happen stance or chance? So what chooses? What selects? How?

An Example. If the earth grows colder (as it has done many times) nature will "select" for those species best able to survive freezing conditions. If the earth grows warmer (which it has done many times) it will "select" for creatures best able to flourish in a warm environment. It is selecting but it is not doing so with intention. This is happen stance (the circumstance which happens). The world changes and life reacts to this by surviving or dying.

That only works if the traits are already present in the gene pool.

That is incorrect. Mutation and re-combination can give rise to entirely new traits. Keep in mind that every trait is simply the result in the recombination of three different amino acids in series. Its fairly easy to introduce new combinations.

Which it would be if the creature was created with all those traits present at the beginning. But evolution suggests that the traits are somehow created by 'nature' through mutations. DNA and the information within it is what determines what an animal is.

In a sense all those traits were there at the beginning. The DNA combinations were all possible but were unrealized. Imagine a language with three letters. Even if you start only with one word "CAB" in time you could take that word and use its parts to create an infinite number of new words and combinations of words. There is in fact no true limit to the combinations you can make, yet to begin with there is only one combination.

Besides, the record of life on earth shows us that many combinations were not there in the begging of life and were discovered over time by the process of life unfolding, changing, living and dying. That is what evolution is.

Dogs have 'dog' DNA and cats have 'cat' DNA, to put it simply. But the kind of information that evolution demands from the lowest form of life to the millions of life forms we have on earth today requires that the information within the DNA be created as well.

Cat DNA and Doc DNA contain many of the exact same sequences and functionality. The differences are actually small compared to the similarities. That is because they share more common points of ancestry than say a grass plant and a dog. Grass and Dog also share many aspects of their DNA, but of course a great many more are not shared. They the basic system of coding remains the same.

But you cannot get new information within DNA. It has to be there to begin with and it has to contain that certain information for one particular animal. DNA cannot change it's message to make cats instead of dogs whether you have billions or trillions of years help. It just doesn't happen.

You are wrong. It can happen and it does happen. New sequences are created and often preserved in DNA to be passed on to offspring.

One of a great many examples
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8403

Mutants in the Big Blue transgenic mouse system show spontaneous clustered multiple mutations with unexpectedly high frequency, consistent with chronocoordinate events. We tested the prediction that the multiple mutations seen within the lacI mutation target sometimes occur in the context of chronocoordinate multiple mutations spanning multiple kilobases (mutation showers). Additional sequencing of mutants was performed in regions immediately flanking the lacI region (total of 10.7 kb). Nineteen additional mutations were found outside the lacI region (“ectomutations”) from 10 mutants containing two or more lacI mutations, whereas only one ectomutation was found in 130 mutants with a single mutation (P < 0.0001). The mutation showers had an average of approximately one mutation per 3 kb. Four mutants showed closely spaced double mutations in the new sequence, and analysis of the spacing between these mutations revealed significant clustering (P = 0.0098). To determine the extent of the mutation showers, regions (8.5 kb total) remote from the lacI region (≈16–17 kb away) were sequenced. Only two additional ectomutations were found in these remote regions, consistent with mutation showers that generally do not extend more than ≈30 kb. We conclude that mutation showers exist and that they constitute at least 0.2% and possibly 1% or more of mutational events observed in this system. The existence of mutation showers has implications for oncogenesis and evolution, raising the possibilities of “cancer in an instant” and “introns as sponges to reduce the deleterious impact of mutation showers.”

Now that we have the ability to actually read DNA we can observe very specifically when new combinations are created. It happens quite a lot in fact.

Natural selection within a species that has all the info within it's DNA does happen, but this is always a LOSS of information, never a gain.

Support this contention with evidence or retract the claim.

Bad example. You see, my pencil mark has a mind behind it. It may take me a long time but I can make as many marks looking the same (because I chose to do so) or I could change it at WILL. Does evolution have a will? Does it have a mind behind it? NO.

You clearly misunderstand the example. To do the experiment you should not try to make any effort to control these marks. Simply make them "willy nilly" or have a series of people make them or whatever you like. The point of it is not whether you make pretty pictures or make the same mark again and again, the point is that the difference between one mark and two marks may not seem like much, but the difference from one mark to one million marks makes a "marked" difference in the appearance of the piece of paper demonstrating that incremental change can result in dramatic change once it accumulates.

Funny, but I'm sure you said it was ''happen stance'', you made a point of it, and I said that happen stance (in the dictionary) means CHANCE. Now you are saying it is not. Is it no wonder that I question what evolutionists say? They contradict themselves.

What it really means is the circumstance that happens. It means that it occurred without design or intent. We call anything that happens without our intent "chance" but indeed that is not really true. The fact it is sunny today is happenstance but it is not random chance. It is simply something beyond human control. When I say happen stance I do so meaning that it was not by design. I do not mean that it is random. Everything that happens is governed by physical laws.

So what does ''complicated and hard to predict'' mean?

It means it is too complicated for you to predict. For example. Take a dozen pencils in your hand and arrange them in some ordered fashion. Know that you are going to drop them from 15 feet over rocky terrain. Before dropping them, predict the pattern in which they will come to rest. Now drop them and observe how they come to rest. Did you predict how they would fall with great accuracy?

I suspect not and the reason is not because the law of gravity, friction etc... changes each time you drop them. Its because the exact circumstances of the drop, and the level of complexity of the interaction of the falling bodies with the air, surface, and each other are so complex that your mind is not able to predict the outcome. The process of life makes the pencils look like the childs play to a degree that is difficult to even express in human terms.

What we cannot predict we call random and it is really as simple as that. But of course in truth it is not random at all but follows specific rules that lead to inevitable outcomes.

Again you say that it is not random....that means ''purposeless'' ''not following any pre-arranged order.'' Then how can evolution work like that? Not having any purpose when it begins it's step by step changes, and having no pre-arranged result at the end. Sounds a bit haphazard to me.

Everything follows a pre-arranged order, it just isn't an order that we are capable of arranging. Evolution is haphazard. But its not random. Life is a system, it has many operating mechanisms. It leads to outcomes. If we could predict the movement of every atom in the earth for one million years we could predict evolution over that time period. Such predictions are impossible, not because they are theoretically unpredictable, but because we lack the ability to understand and measure them accurately.

Also now we have a ''rewards'' and ''punishment'' system in place as well.
How does it ''choose''....randomly of course....which one? Sorry but this all sounds like words to me with no apparent substance in reality.:huh:

In order for humans to describe the world we have a system of symbolic logic. We have developed language in order that we can share our ideas with one another. Most of our language is developed based on human ideas like intent and purpose and desire. The universe however doesn't work like that. Nature doesn't care about purpose or desire or any of that. Thus I have to use words that are human centric to help you understand what I am trying to say about a system that has not human reference and its confusing you.

The simple fact is that when the environment changes, which happens inevitably and often beyond the ability of life forms to change, life forms will thrive or die as a result. Those that live are "selected" not my choice but by circumstance. The "reward" is to live, the "Punishment" is to die. Nature cares not who lives or dies, its not concerned, it has no mind, yet living and dying happen none the less.

I think the fundamental problem you have understanding all this is you "think like a person" rather than trying to understand how a world works that is not human centric, not one designed by or for people. Your God is just a personification of yourself writ large an explanation for the universe as a human thing and not as the impersonal machine it appears to be.

theophilus

September 20th, 2010, 08:48 AM

[QUOTE] Originally Posted by theophilus
But what kind of experiments can you perform to test evolution?Dog breeding is an example of how we can artificially select an animal for particular traits. Or one can examine the animals we have: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39156876/ns/technology_and_science-science/.Dog breeding isn't evolution. It is simply the selection of characteristics that already exist. All of the genes in the different kinds of dog already existed in its ancestors.

So which part of the evidence do you not support:The problem is not with the evidence but with how it is interpreted. No one examines it with an open mind but already has preconceived ideas which affect his view of the evidence. For example, if you begin by assuming that everything can be explained by natural processes alone and God has never intervened then you must logically assume that the fossils were produced over a long period of time. But is you are open to the belief that God might sometimes intervene in what happens there is another possible explanation, that the fossils were produced by a worldwide flood.

The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order. But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.

As the Flood waters rose, they buried organisms in the order that they were encountered. This means the major groups found in the fossil record appear according to where they lived, not when they lived.On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.

You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record

Sigfried

September 20th, 2010, 10:07 AM

[QUOTE=SharmaK;446000]Dog breeding is an example of how we can artificially select an animal for particular traits. Or one can examine the animals we have: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39156876/ns/technology_and_science-science/.Dog breeding isn't evolution. It is simply the selection of characteristics that already exist. All of the genes in the different kinds of dog already existed in its ancestors.

That is not true. Many dog breeds are based on mutations that are selected for by the human breeders.

http://www.seefido.com/dog-breeding/html/dog_breed_evolution.htm

Mutations in domestic animals that man considers useful have always been adopted by him as part of a well planned out breeding in order to establish the peculiarity that it involves. These peculiarities have been developed gradually until attaining the characteristics of the breed. The dachshund or the badger dog is an example of a breed that had its origin as a mutation. In this case, the mutation affected its legs, which would stay in short at the beginning of its development, which in turn developed to the short legs that is now the main physical feature of the breed. This phenomenon is scientifically known as condrodistrofia. The bulldog breeds also belong to the group that has inherited the condrodistrofia characteristics.

This is one reason you will suddenly find new breeds of animals on the market, someone has encountered a mutation and successfully bred it to offspring and then through careful selection a strong breeding population is created. People can do this much more effectively than the natural environment but the process is essentially the same.

The problem is not with the evidence but with how it is interpreted. No one examines it with an open mind but already has preconceived ideas which affect his view of the evidence. For example, if you begin by assuming that everything can be explained by natural processes alone and God has never intervened then you must logically assume that the fossils were produced over a long period of time.

The people that discovered how old fossils were did not have any such agenda. They merely examined the available physical evidence to come to their conclusions. No one dated fossils in an effort to disprove the existence of god or with some notion that of course they must be old because god doesn't exist. Showing the earth to be old or young has no real impact on whether there is a god or isn't a god. You can easily still believe in god and also believe that the earth is 10, 10 thousand, 10 million, 10 billion or 10 trillion years old. Belief has nothing to do with it.

The reason folks managed to date fossils are many fold. For starters they were able to study sedimentary rates in modern times. They also used known age markers from corroborating historical events or from the time needed to achieve fossilization. Once radioactivity was understood much more precise measurements could be made of the decay in the radioactivity of the carbon molecules that all living things are made out of or the age of sedimentary rock could be determined by other radioscopy measurements. Radioactive decay rates are the most reliable and consistent temporal measurements we know of to date.

No one picked how old they thing things are supposed to be before measuring them. They simple measured them and came up with an answer. It is only because you and other Christians had some preconceived notion about how old things MUST be that you object to the findings.

Ask any Atheist why they don't believe in god, and you will find that its got nothing to do with evolution. The age of the earth might have some small measure of bearing but even that is pretty inconsequential. I don't care if evolution is true or not beyond the fact I'd like to know what is true. I have no personal stake in the answer. My afterlife or my personal identity or my sense of morality is not tied up in it. The only advantage is that if I do understand it I may be able to use that knowledge to better my life (for instance by learning how to use the genetic system to cure disease).

If learned men listened only to the bible we'd all be still suffering from the bubonic plague and trying to cure epilepsy with exorcism. Science has changed the face of the earth and the way human beings live far more than religion ever has and the reason for that is they make decisions based on evidence rather than conviction. They reject answers that are proven wrong rather than work hard to continue trying to prove them right despite the evidence.

But is you are open to the belief that God might sometimes intervene in what happens there is another possible explanation, that the fossils were produced by a worldwide flood.

We know the fossils were not produced in a worldwide flood because they don't show any evidence of that. We know what fossils produced in a flood would look like because we have plenty of examples and they don't look like the ones we find all over the world. We also know that the fossils were layered down in multiple layers over billions of years rather than all at once in one layer. The flood thing just isn't born out by the facts.

We have 0 objective evidence that God does anything in the world today, or in the past. There is exactly the same amount of objective evidence for Zeus as there is for God... ie. none.

The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order.

It predicts no such thing. There is no set order for evolution, life responds to the environment in which it lives. This can cause life to evolve in any number of directions which are likely to change whenever the environment changes.

But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.

********. Most evolutionary forms show an increase in complexity of form over time. This is quite evident in the chronological record. While there is certainly a fair bit of backsliding due to drastic environmental changes, for the most part living organisms today are far more complicated in structure than they were many millions of years ago. Of course there are many specific exceptions, but that only reinforces the notion that evolution is not planned or organized deliberately but simply a process which develops in a changing world.

As the Flood waters rose, they buried organisms in the order that they were encountered. This means the major groups found in the fossil record appear according to where they lived, not when they lived.On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.

That is not at all what we find. What we find is that in a given location you can find fossils of plants that exist only in swamps as well as plants that exist only in deserts, as well as plants that live only in tundra. There is no way for them all to have lived at that location at the same time. Each is found in distinct layers of earth which is impossible in a flood.

A flood would and does lay down sediment in such a way that the heaviest elements sift to the bottom and the lightest end up on the top, it also scatters and mixes everything into a large mostly homogeneous mess. Most of the remains we find tend not to be mixed up like that or laid out in a heaviest to lightest arrangement. Flood sediment looks nothing like what we find in most fossil deposits because most fossil deposits were not caused by floods.

Whomever wrote this thing you are quoting doesn't know what they are talking about. Get a jar of water, and throw a bunch of different types of soil in there along with some small bones and such. Then shake it up, then let it settle. Examine the way in which the soil and bones are deposited. You will see a pattern to it that is not at all like the patterns we find in sedimentary rock.

You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried.

You wouldn't see any tracks at all because the flood waters would instantly erase them. Whomever wrote this nonsense needs some serious help thinking. Animal remains are not always found on mountain tops and other high places. They are often found in lowland areas as much as highland areas. Indeed in many cases the fossils are likely far from where they were deposited due to geological movement.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record

This site is chock full of misinformation about the actual fossil record, geology, and a number of other scientific subjects. While you are welcome to read it and quote from it, I urge you to seek out less biased sources to corroborate what they say and expand your scope of learning.

After a bit of research on the author it may be that he is lying rather than being stupid
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

This article details the fact that the same author of the sites and answersingenesis also publishes peer reviewed scientific articles in which he clearly refers to rocks being millions of years old and other facts entirely contradictory to the work he writes for the religious site.

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

In other words, the man is likely lying to you, telling you what you want to hear so that you or others like you will send him money to support his "research"

Mazz

September 20th, 2010, 11:44 AM

Sigfried: ''Again, you have a mindset that there must be absolute authority and certainty for any truth claim. ''

As a Christian I do believe that God has absolute authority and am certain of the truth that is revealed in the Bible. That does not exclude me from also believing the science can show at least that evolution is not true and that in fact that God created all that exists. Of course it is your freedom to believe otherwise and use science to try and prove it.

''That is not a scientific mindset, it is a dogmatic mindset that remains closed to new information. You fall to the appeal of those who are arrogant enough to claim absolute truth. You are saying you would trust science more if it left no room for any doubt, but that would be a betrayal of what science is, and exploration and discovery of truth through experimentation and reasoning.''

I also find evolutionists dogmatic about what they believe with no room for any other explanation, especially not if it involves God. Is it arrogance to believe something absolutely, I don't think so. I believe in God because I have has a personal encounter with Him. That said, I also then believe what He has said in His Word the Bible.That said, I have to believe all of it or none. So I believe what God said in Genesis 1, that He created the Heavens and the earth and all things in them and that He did it in 6 days. Yes, I do believe that, and I know that for some that seems ridiculous, but I believe that science can back that belief up.

Science is searching and discovering the truth about the Universe, that search does not always bring results, and scientists can tend to create a theory and then treat it almost as if it is fact. This is what they have done with evolution.

''What we do know for a fact is that life on earth changed dramatically and fairly steadily over the course of billions of years''

You see, as you view what I say as arrogant, I read this and see exactly the same thing. We do not know for a fact that life changed over billions of years.....the evidence is still in the balance. There are still many reputable scientists that believe evolution is still an unproven theory.

''I'm not sure what your brand of belief is exactly but I doubt it can accurately account for the very real information that we have about the earths history and that of life on earth nearly as well as the theory of evolution does.''

I have no 'brand' of belief, I am a born-again, spirit-filled believer in Jesus Christ.
I know Him. I know that He created all things. There is no doubt in my mind about that and so I know that evolution is not true. But I don't just base my belief about creation on what you may call my 'religious' beliefs, but do believe that science can verify what I believe as far as Gods creation goes.

''You are deluded as to what scientists are doing. Very few scientists are members of the Intelligent Design movement. Complexity is not a problem for evolution and no one tries to brush it under the carpet. You are simply not knowledgeable enough to understand how evolution is thought to operate. A system of repeated change with a mechanism for positive and negative reinforcement and a system for recording success can lead to extreme complexity given sufficient time and scope.''

Am I allowed to reply in similar fashion? I have had this thrown at me from evolutionists before but I guess that is the nature of debate.....you think I am deluded, that is your prerogative. I don't think it is particularly helpful to say so.
I know enough to know that evolution has no evidence to prove it is any more than a theory. An explanation. But not a fact. And many of your points I have already touched on.

''It is the notion that because your brain holds an idea that it must be true. We know for a fact many peoples brains hold ideas that are false. You "believe" in a religion and yet billions of people "believe" in different religions all holding that totally different claims are most certainly and without a doubt true. ''

AS far as my belief in Jesus Christ is concerned it certainly is not in my head. It is in my spirit, my heart, my soul. It is not just a thought, it is something that has touched me deep down within my very being. God has made Himself known to me in a very real and powerful way. But I can never convince you of that because it is something that you will have to experience for yourself to believe it.

There is only one truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is that Truth, because He said so when He was on this earth 2,000 years ago. ''I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.''

Sigfried

September 20th, 2010, 11:45 AM

As a Christian I do believe that God has absolute authority and am certain of the truth that is revealed in the Bible. That does not exclude me from also believing the science can show at least that evolution is not true and that in fact that God created all that exists. Of course it is your freedom to believe otherwise and use science to try and prove it.

You start with a belief and then look for proof. I start with evidence and form an opinion. I am not trying to prove God does not exist. I am simply saying that the evidence does not support the notion that he does. There is a significant difference.

You adopted an answer before you even knew what the question was.

I also find evolutionists dogmatic about what they believe with no room for any other explanation, especially not if it involves God.

Evolutionists are simply following the evidence. If you present better evidence in support of God they and I will listen to you. Until you can do so, you will remain unconvincing.

Is it arrogance to believe something absolutely, I don't think so.

I do. It pre-supposes that you know everything there is to know and that nothing unknown to you is important or true. That is very arrogant.

I believe in God because I have has a personal encounter with Him.

Tell me about it. Did you speak to God directly? What did he say, how did he say it. What did God look like or sound like? How did you know God was the agent of communication?

That said, I also then believe what He has said in His Word the Bible.

Why?

That said, I have to believe all of it or none.

Why?

So I believe what God said in Genesis 1, that He created the Heavens and the earth and all things in them and that He did it in 6 days. Yes, I do believe that, and I know that for some that seems ridiculous, but I believe that science can back that belief up.

You are wrong in your belief. Science has already found a great deal of evidence that says it is false. "Days" is a term relative only to the earth which we know for a fact did not exist when everything was created. How long a day is changes every "day" by a very small amount in fact. It would be a meaningless measurement. It is however very meaningful to humans which would explain why humans would put it in the bible that humans wrote.

From earth we can see light from other stars that is millions of years old. There is no way it can simply be there. It had to come from somewhere and travel to us over millions of years. The processes that create stars and planets are still going on today and they take millions of years to happen. The earth shows sights of millions of years of asteroid impacts. There is a mountain of evidence of all different sorts that all point in the same directions and it is not the direction that the bible points to if you read it literally.

Science is searching and discovering the truth about the Universe, that search does not always bring results, and scientists can tend to create a theory and then treat it almost as if it is fact. This is what they have done with evolution.

Evolution could be wrong, but it is the best explanation we have at the moment. The only support you have for your notion is an old book much like the old books of every other religion that has some legend about how creation came to be.

You see, as you view what I say as arrogant, I read this and see exactly the same thing. We do not know for a fact that life changed over billions of years.....the evidence is still in the balance. There are still many reputable scientists that believe evolution is still an unproven theory.

Not really that many no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

The problem is that the people you interact with and your sources of information are all biased. You simply don't do any study (so far as I can tell) outside of the rather small bubble of those who claim creationism is supported scientifically.

I've already shown you evidence that one such "scientist" is clearly publishing contradictory material on his religious site as compared to what he publishes in scientific journals. Your being used by people that want your money rather than who want to get at the truth.

I have no 'brand' of belief, I am a born-again, spirit-filled believer in Jesus Christ.
I know Him. I know that He created all things.

And how do you know such things?

There is no doubt in my mind about that and so I know that evolution is not true.

And that I think is likely because you don't want to believe anything else. Thus you automatically reject anything contrary. You are ultimately and completely biased and thus not able to make rational judgements.

But I don't just base my belief about creation on what you may call my 'religious' beliefs, but do believe that science can verify what I believe as far as Gods creation goes.

Then show me this science of yours.

Am I allowed to reply in similar fashion? I have had this thrown at me from evolutionists before but I guess that is the nature of debate.....you think I am deluded, that is your prerogative. I don't think it is particularly helpful to say so.

I don't think you are insane or the like. I am saying that you are biased by your desire to believe in God/Jesus. It is something you very much want to be true. I don't have any desire one way or the other. I'd be quite happy if God were real and quite happy believing he is not. I was not raised a Christian but neither was I raised as an Atheist. I don't make any money or have any social ties based on my religion. I honestly don't know the religious beliefs of most of the people I know.

I think its important that we all understand our own process of thought and what its implications are. I think you are closed to any belief but one and thus are not interested or fairly judging the merits of the evidence or arguments. I think your lack of a understanding of the topic is partly intentional. That is not an insult, it is an observation.

You seem like a nice, and well meaning person and you write well. You seem plenty smart. If I though you were stupid or utterly ignorant I wouldn't be dialogging with you as neither of us would stand to learn anything.

I know enough to know that evolution has no evidence to prove it is any more than a theory. An explanation. But not a fact. And many of your points I have already touched on.

But you have already said the basis for your belief is some kind of feeling or intuition rather than any rational argument or point of fact. You re certain that some day it will be corroborated but at the present time it is in fact refuted. How is that any kind of basis for determining fact?

AS far as my belief in Jesus Christ is concerned it certainly is not in my head. It is in my spirit, my heart, my soul. It is not just a thought, it is something that has touched me deep down within my very being. God has made Himself known to me in a very real and powerful way. But I can never convince you of that because it is something that you will have to experience for yourself to believe it.

It is an emotion. Emotions are not rational. Children fear ghosts and monsters but they are not real. Adults "believe" that agents of the government are following their every move, but its not true. Just because you feel or "know" something does not mean it is real outside of yourself. All those claims you make, believers in other faiths make the exact same statements. Why are you right and they are wrong? They are as willing to die for their "beliefs" as you may be. Conviction is not evidence and it does not lead to truth.

There is only one truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is that Truth, because He said so when He was on this earth 2,000 years ago. ''I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.''

Now you are just chanting slogans at me. Saying it with "all your heart" does not make it true it just strengthens your feeling that it is.

Mazz

September 20th, 2010, 01:08 PM

''Evolution is haphazard. But its not random. ''

Here again I see a contradiction. Haphazard means at random, yet you say it is haphazard but not random. Chance, random, haphazard, happen stance, all means the same thing. It is not ordered. It is not designed. It is not planned. I'v always found that things that are explained by these words usually turn our chaotic and in no way produces that kind of design and precise structure that we see in creatures today. All animals tend to have specific features, designed for a purpose, made for a purpose that helps them live and have offspring.

And I still would like you to tell me where the information within DNA comes from? Information which demands an intelligent source.

Sigfried: ''You start with a belief and then look for proof. I start with evidence and form an opinion. ''

But you also start from a belief. You start with a world view that leaves God out.
Even atheism is a belief about why and how we are here.
You still start from a world view that leads you to look at the evidence a certain way, just as you say I do. You are as much biased in the way you look at the evidence as I am, and you interpret what you see by that bias. But the evidence speaks for itself if you allow it to.

''I do. It pre-supposes that you know everything there is to know and that nothing unknown to you is important or true. That is very arrogant.''

I don't know everything, but I know Someone Who does. Is it arrogant to say that Jesus is the Only Way, the Only Truth? Because if so, then Jesus Himself, by your own estimate is also arrogant. For He said He was the Only Way and the Only Truth. I think I am in good company.

''Tell me about it. Did you speak to God directly? What did he say, how did he say it. What did God look like or sound like? How did you know God was the agent of communication?''

I am not going to share something with you that is very precious to me when I know that you will only reply with a negative attitude. And in any case, how can a person explain such profound experiences..... and actually there have been many experiences where the Lord has made Himself known to me over the years, proving to me that He is there.

''You are wrong in your belief. Science has already found a great deal of evidence that says it is false. "Days" is a term relative only to the earth which we know for a fact did not exist when everything was created. How long a day is changes every "day" by a very small amount in fact. It would be a meaningless measurement. It is however very meaningful to humans which would explain why humans would put it in the bible that humans wrote.''

You are wrong in your belief....or unbelief.
The word 'day' in Genesis is the Hebrew word Yom. Now this word could mean an ordinary day, or it could mean ''in our day trams were used'', or any day, not 24 hours long. But in Genesis 1 the word Yom is used with ''morning and evening'', and with ordinate numbers....1st, 2nd, 3rd day.....which Hebrew scholars would (or should) agree means that the 'day' used here does mean an ordinary 24 hour day.
Now for an omnipotent God, there is no problem with Him creating in 6 hours if He wanted, but God always has a plan and purpose for everything He does. Either, God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days as He said He did or He didn't and He lied. That is certainly not an option!
The Bible was written by many men over many centuries yet is harmonious throughout because they were all inspired by Gods Holy Spirit.

''The problem is that the people you interact with and your sources of information are all biased. You simply don't do any study (so far as I can tell) outside of the rather small bubble of those who claim creationism is supported scientifically.''

I could say the same about you Sigfried, but then I don't know much about you as you don't know much about me. I have done a lot of reading, listening and collecting information from both sides for years, I love to read anything scientific and not exclusively creation science. I have a book by Paul Davies called ''About Time.''I am fascinated by the relationship between space, time and the speed of light. I don't always understand it all, but I know far more about it than your normal Jo Bloggs, or Mary Bloggs in my case. It wasn't until about 15 years ago, halfway through my Christian life, that I changed my belief from the theory of evolution to special creation. Everything I read before that was evolutionary based. But one day I realised that the evidence the scientists say is there really isn't.
I also like listening to Stephen Hawking. So I am not limited to a bubble.

''You seem like a nice, and well meaning person and you write well. You seem plenty smart. If I though you were stupid or utterly ignorant I wouldn't be dialogging with you as neither of us would stand to learn anything.''

Well thanks Sigfried, it's nice of you to say. I have an IQ of 138....the last time I took the test. Is that smart? I just read a lot, always have. I love knowledge, but particularly science, astronomy, physics (which I started to read up on but not good at the Maths). I find it all so interesting. I have also studied the Bible quite comprehensively. I'm glad you have chosen to dialogue with me.

Sigfried:Now you are just chanting slogans at me. Saying it with "all your heart" does not make it true it just strengthens your feeling that it is.

I can only tell you what I believe, just as you convey to me what you believe. How I believe is my personal experience. You cannot, with all honesty, prove that God doesn't exist and that what I believe isn't true. And you have no way of knowing what it means to have faith in God.

Sigfried

September 20th, 2010, 02:24 PM

Here again I see a contradiction. Haphazard means at random, yet you say it is haphazard but not random. Chance, random, haphazard, happen stance, all means the same thing. It is not ordered. It is not designed. It is not planned. I'v always found that things that are explained by these words usually turn our chaotic and in no way produces that kind of design and precise structure that we see in creatures today. All animals tend to have specific features, designed for a purpose, made for a purpose that helps them live and have offspring.

This is hard to get across because of the examples you use when you talk about this.

Let me define these like this just for our discussion
Random = no predictable order or form
Haphazard = no intended design or purpose

There is a difference here and that is that everything, whether it is guided by a human like mind or not clearly follows rules of the physical universe. Mass always has gravity. Surfaces always have some friction. For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. These are scientific laws we have discovered through years of study. Even religious folks don't generally dispute them. So long as they apply, random is only a subjective notion. Everything follows an ordered patter laid down by the physical laws of the universe.

Haphazard simply says there is not an intent or a design or a mind at work like that of a human being or another animal with intellect enough to form and carry out a plan.

Evolution is haphazard but it is not random. It always follows the laws and constraints of reality which drives it in specific directions. As if cattle were driving into a canyon. They may not want to go the way the canyon goes, but they have no practical choice. A river doesn't choose where to flow, yet a river flows in a specific direction and for a specific reason. It is haphazard but it is not random.

Do you understand the difference I'm getting at in these terms?

And I still would like you to tell me where the information within DNA comes from? Information which demands an intelligent source.

Why does information demand an intelligent source? The molecules of H20 make water but it is not a design. The planet earth is massively complicated as are all other planets but that does not mean they are designed. Each and every thing in all the universe contains information and patterns but there is no evidence they were designed.

The human mind seeks to order things because it makes it easier for us to live. God is just a very simple way to order things that people have postulated. Unfortunately it is very poor at predicting anything other than human behavior and so it is not of great value to us outside of human society.

But you also start from a belief. You start with a world view that leaves God out.

No I didn't. I didn't start with any opinion about God. That developed over time as I learned about the world and the opinions of the people in it.

Even atheism is a belief about why and how we are here.

Not for me. Atheism is an opinion. I am of the opinion that there are no gods based on my observations. I do not "believe" it or "know" it.

You still start from a world view that leads you to look at the evidence a certain way, just as you say I do. You are as much biased in the way you look at the evidence as I am, and you interpret what you see by that bias. But the evidence speaks for itself if you allow it to.

I am not biased. I actively seek out Christians and other religious people to have them explain to me their reasoning and beliefs. I have found that most religious have the same arguments for their faith and none of them are based in observation and reason but in emotional appeals and a fear of death. Perhaps one day they will convince me otherwise. I am entirely open to that but so far few have any strength in argument to match their conviction.

You have presented almost no argument or reasoning other than to make broad claims that others must be wrong because of your spiritual feeling. It is not convincing.

I am not going to share something with you that is very precious to me when I know that you will only reply with a negative attitude.

Then you should not mention it in a debate as a source of evidence for your position. It is not fair to say "This is why I believe" and then to withhold why or what it is.

Either keep the personal stuff out of here or back it up with honest testimony. Of course I will seek to critique it, this is a debate after all. How can you have faith in something that is never challenged? What do you really have to fear from my critique after all?

Embarrassment? Insecurity in the belief?

If you are so certain why would you hesitate?

Its this kind of behavior that makes me suspicious of any such claims. Generally when I do hear them they are little more than common life circumstance to which someone attributes meaning. They are events that happen to most people but to which some attach special explanations that match their belief system.

The word 'day' in Genesis is the Hebrew word Yom. Now this word could mean an ordinary day, or it could mean ''in our day trams were used'', or any day, not 24 hours long. But in Genesis 1 the word Yom is used with ''morning and evening'',

But the fact remains, its clear that the earth, the life on it, and the heavens about it all formed over a period much longer than one earth day, and much of it happened before the earth itself could have existed. The very notion of a day is a very human centric concept that only applies to one location in the vast universe much less to a God who is greater even than that. It makes sense from a people that knew nothing of the heavens more than they were light and nothing more of the earth than they stood upon it. In the light of modern knowledge it seems silly.

The Bible was written by many men over many centuries yet is harmonious throughout because they were all inspired by Gods Holy Spirit.

It is not Harmonious throughout. One look through the religion threads here will demonstrate numerous points of disagreement in the bible.

Here is a link to 101 contradictions in the old testament.
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id8.html

Clearly they stopped at a nice round number rather than simply try to find as many as possible. If God inspired the writing with a divine sense of clarity and purpose, one would think it could hold up better to scrutiny.

I could say the same about you Sigfried, but then I don't know much about you as you don't know much about me. I have done a lot of reading, listening and collecting information from both sides for years, I love to read anything scientific and not exclusively creation science.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm glad to hear you are better read. I am very curious then what specific information in the scientific literature you found convincing that evolution was not possible or was not the best available explanation. I'd like to read it.

I'm glad you have chosen to dialogue with me.

And I'm glad your taking the time. I think perhaps a good thread on the topic would be a point by point comparison between evolution/natural science and theological explanations. Say taking a given agreed to fact of evidence and then offering the two explanations of it along with critique.

It is not emotions, it is spiritual. There is a difference.

How? I have spiritual feelings. I have identified them to be situations where I am aware of a greater whole as well as my discrete individuality and the interconnection between the two. For instance looking into the starlight sky is spiritual because I am faced with the grandeur of the universe of which I am a very tiny portion, yet also my fundamental belonging to that greater whole. Nearly every spiritual feeling I have spoken to someone about fits into that category of experience.

I'v tried using the quote system, I hope this works.

Sure, its more the repeated posts that the quotes that were throwing me off.

I can't answer that in a way that will convince you. All I can say is that they can't all be right.....but someone must be!

Could it not be that since most of them must be wrong that all of them could well be wrong? I know that conclusion is not required but it seems the most likely.

I can only tell you what I believe, just as you convey to me what you believe. How I believe is my personal experience. You cannot, with all honesty, prove that God doesn't exist and that what I believe isn't true.

But this is a debate forum. We do not come to state our beliefs but to argue for a claim. I do not debate only to convince others, but also to learn from them and have my ideas challenged in the possibility that I am wrong. I find out I'm wrong fairly often although it happens less and less as I grow older because I have done a lot of reading.

And you have no way of knowing what it means to have faith in God.

Really? Can I not ask other people?

There are a number of Atheists on this site who used to be strong Christian believers. They claim they had full faith in god up until moments in their life that precipitated a change. They come to realize that the faith they felt was simply an emotional response to the feelings of community and fellowship they found in church. Since they personally had that perspective as well as an Atheist one I trust that they are best able to describe the difference. They are not objective but they are experienced.

Have you ever been an Atheist? Do you know what such a mindset is like as your own? How can you speak to what I know or cannot know if you have never experienced it?

Mazz

September 21st, 2010, 05:20 AM

Sigfried: Haphazard simply says there is not an intent or a design or a mind at work like that of a human being or another animal with intellect enough to form and carry out a plan.

Evolution is haphazard but it is not random. It always follows the laws and constraints of reality which drives it in specific directions.

I still want to know where the information within DNA comes from. It has to come from some intelligence, some intellect that created the codes that directs the cells into creating a certain animal. The information within the DNA strands of a dog, so to speak, seems intent on creating dogs, cell by cell. Is this haphazard evolution? It doesn't sound like it to me.

Again I say that the information within the DNA is not added to to create such diversity within the animal kingdom that we see.
And I have just read something about the mathematical possibility of mutations being the mechanism in evolution. Mutations are so rare, that they occur on average perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule. The problem comes when one needs a SERIES of related mutations; the odds of getting only two related mutations is 10 to the power of 7 X 10 to the power of 7 or one in one trillion! Only four related mutations have a chance of one in 10 to the power of 28, and the earth is not big enough to hold enough organisms to make this likely! Surprisingly, it was Huxley, the famous evolutionist, who worked out the probability of the evolution of the horse as 1 in 10 to the power of 3,000,000!
Evolution is impossible with such odds stacked against it!

Sigfried:I am not biased. I actively seek out Christians and other religious people to have them explain to me their reasoning and beliefs. I have found that most religious have the same arguments for their faith and none of them are based in observation and reason but in emotional appeals and a fear of death. Perhaps one day they will convince me otherwise. I am entirely open to that but so far few have any strength in argument to match their conviction.

Everyone is biased one way or another. Every opinion and belief you have is biased in some way. No one in this world has not bias at all. It would mean that they has no brain to think.
It is sad to say that even I find it difficult to find Christians who share my enthusiasm about science, and to share it with those who believe that that is all there is to the Universe. I just love to share what I know.
I seek to offer more than emotional responses. I hope that I offer reasonable arguments against evolution, through not only science but logical reasoning.

You have presented almost no argument or reasoning other than to make broad claims that others must be wrong because of your spiritual feeling. It is not convincing.

I'v done it! Found how to post in one go!! :cool:

What I have said so far may not be convincing but I cannot agree that I have not offered some good argument and reasoning. I'v just made broad claims that others are wrong? I don't think so. Maybe your missing something. :coolsmiley:

Either keep the personal stuff out of here or back it up with honest testimony. Of course I will seek to critique it, this is a debate after all. How can you have faith in something that is never challenged? What do you really have to fear from my critique after all?

It has nothing to do with fear. I just don't want to share the details of the very special experiences I have had with the Lord. You can challenge all you like, but I have the freedom to say what I will if I feel it is relevant. If you don't think it is relevant, that is your prerogative.

Embarrassment? Insecurity in the belief?

If you are so certain why would you hesitate?

Again, absolutely not. Why should I be embarrassed? Insecure I most certainly am not. Hesitant? No. I just made a decision not to share it with you. That's my choice.

Clearly they stopped at a nice round number rather than simply try to find as many as possible. If God inspired the writing with a divine sense of clarity and purpose, one would think it could hold up better to scrutiny.

As far as I'm concerned it does. And I haven't time at the moment to answer all the contradictions. There are many reasons why people think they are there, but they just pick them out usually to pull the Bible apart. But this is going right off the subject at hand.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm glad to hear you are better read. I am very curious then what specific information in the scientific literature you found convincing that evolution was not possible or was not the best available explanation. I'd like to read it.

I could not give you specifics, this happened over a number of years with different sources of material. But I think it started with a 'Bible study' I went to soon after I came to know the Lord, which was in a CofE Church vicarage. It was there that I heard for the first time that Genesis was a myth! I did not go along with this interpretation and thus started my search for the truth. It took a while! I had many interpretations explained to me over the years but nothing sounded right. And then I discovered ministries that actually believed the Genesis account, and it all clicked into place....piece by piece, science and the Bible was in harmony.

And I'm glad your taking the time. I think perhaps a good thread on the topic would be a point by point comparison between evolution/natural science and theological explanations. Say taking a given agreed to fact of evidence and then offering the two explanations of it along with critique.

I didn't think you had time for the theological side of the debate. And I agree that we should take each point at a time, we seem to be going here, there and everywhere on this thread.

But this is a debate forum. We do not come to state our beliefs but to argue for a claim. I do not debate only to convince others, but also to learn from them and have my ideas challenged in the possibility that I am wrong. I find out I'm wrong fairly often although it happens less and less as I grow older because I have done a lot of reading.

But our claims are what we believe. It doesn't have to be religious. You believe that everything came into existence by chance....no God involved....and that all living things were evolved haphazardly. I argue for what I believe and I claim what I believe. I accept challenges, but I find that they strengthen what I believe rather than cause me to doubt. I was wrong once and accept that fact.....but now I believe I know the truth about the Universe.To me it is not simply a belief, it is a faith....a faith that I live by. And that includes the faith in a God that created all things in 6 literal days. If one day someone can actually convince me that there is no God, I shall continue to believe in Him. I don't for a minute believe that will ever happen.

Really? Can I not ask other people?

Of course you can ask other people about faith in God. It's a free country, but
you won't truly understand it until you have it. It just isn't something that can be simply explained.

There are a number of Atheists on this site who used to be strong Christian believers. They claim they had full faith in god up until moments in their life that precipitated a change. They come to realize that the faith they felt was simply an emotional response to the feelings of community and fellowship they found in church.

Then maybe that is all it was, an emotional response. It wasn't a personal relationship with Christ that became a reality in their spirit. But there are many things in life that can rock your boat when you are a Christian. I'v been through many a storm myself that could have sent me running from God, but actually it made my faith stronger. That included having an alcoholic husband, being made homeless with two children and not having enough food to eat!

Jesus spoke of the cares of this life that choked the Word of God in someone's life, and those who had no root and have 'faith' for a time then left because of the deceitfulness of sin and lust for other things. If you are rooted and grounded in God and His Word, NOTHING can separate us from Him.

Have you ever been an Atheist? Do you know what such a mindset is like as your own? How can you speak to what I know or cannot know if you have never experienced it?

AS I said, I came to know Christ at a certain point in time, which means, yes, I was an atheist, or perhaps more of an agnostic I'm not sure. But I certainly didn't believe in the God I know now. I thought there must be some Being that made our Universe but that was it. I lived my life for myself, did all the things young people do, and a lot of wrong things too! I lived without any faith, going through life doing my own thing. so I have experienced a life without God.

Time for a cuppa!;):

mican333

September 21st, 2010, 10:26 AM

I still want to know where the information within DNA comes from. It has to come from some intelligence, some intellect that created the codes that directs the cells into creating a certain animal. The information within the DNA strands of a dog, so to speak, seems intent on creating dogs, cell by cell. Is this haphazard evolution?

Yes it is. The DNA evolves as well.

In the past there were only wolves with wolf DNA but no dogs and therefore no dog DNA. As wolves evolved into dogs, the DNA likewise evolved to create dogs instead of wolves.

And it apparently all happened through natural selection.

manc

September 21st, 2010, 12:07 PM

Manc: ''Just a quicky on the dolphin bit for now as I need to get off this computer before my back goes! The hind legs are a remnant of when dolphins were land animals with 4 legs. Their back legs have evolved away, but still there in the genetic code, so occasionally one is born with them by mistake. I guess you could say arent they just back flippers that used to exist, but you have to look at the overall picture. ''

This will have to be quick too because Monday is a fairly busy day for me, but I just wanted to answer this point.

I have already spoken about added digits.....as for example six fingers instead of five. This growth is abnormal.....it does not mean that we once had six fingers during our supposed evolutionary process. That goes for any extra appendages, they are mutations that are abnormal, and putting aside evolutionary assumptions, the dolphins extra limbs could also be described as abnormal growth during its development before birth. You would not assume that cats had two heads in their distant past because we have those kind of mutations today would you? ;):

PS: I still haven't had time to look at the Grand Canyon links you gave me so I shall get back to you about those too!

Have you ever read of a book called ''Thousands.....not billions'', by Dr. Don DeYoung?
He is a physics professor at Grace College, Winona Lake, IN. I guess he must know a bit about the subject of the Grand Canyon which he speaks about in several places in his book. It is fairly technical so it takes more than one reading to grasp what he is saying. But he does talk about dating methods including half life's, radiohalos, metamorphic rocks and other geological features. I find science fascinating.

Yeah but I mentioned other vestigial stuff. And if you look at different species there is all sorts.

For geology, you dont need to get too technical, but to understand the basics is important. Stratigraphy is the key thing here. After that, plate tectonics is an extremely interesting subject to have a nose at.

The bloke you mention is a YEC 'scientist' at a private religious college. He has a PhD in physics, but I have no idea what he studied. He isn't a geologist.

Incidently, you really MUSt have a gander at this
Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Mazz

September 21st, 2010, 12:15 PM

Manc: There is no evidence that DNA evolves or ever evolved. If evolution started off with a few cells....which in itself is impossible, life cannot start spontaneously.....then you are asking for a massive addition in the DNA information, and innumerable mutations, all in perfect sequence to create higher forms of life that can not only live and survive but reproduce. It is not possible. Did you look at the odds involved in the possibility of life evolving?

And the dogs we have today have the DNA that was in wolves to start with but in fact they have less wolf DNA in them.....wolf to dog DNA just meant that there was a loss of information not a gain.

Manc: I'v read talkorigins stuff before but they are just as unconvincing as any evolutionist site. They usually say a lot, but a lot they say doesn't prove anything.

What I hear from those that believe the earth is young makes sense to me but don't ask me to try and explain it myself, I would just end up writing someone else explanation! :coolsmiley:

manc

September 21st, 2010, 12:25 PM

Manc: I'v looked at two of the links you gave me to do with the Grand Canyon, there is much there to look at and study and as geology was never my strongest subject I can't say anything about it until I have made full study of it. That could takes weeks! All I can say is, that what I have heard and read by other scientists, who are fully qualified in this field and believe in a young earth, I find quite convincing.

Here is a link of one of those qualified who was a professor of geology. I say 'was' because he is now dead.

http://www.icr.org/article/1095/275/

I hope I am allowed to post this.[COLOR="Silver"]

Start by reading how the early stratigraphers put together the geological column.

I have done geological mapping so its second nature to me, I started getting into geology as a kid, my old man was studying it. They I went to uni to do it. I still have mates in the field, even though I worked in a slightly different subject after uni (metallurgy).

They key thing is that you get sequences of fossils, fossil X is always higher up the scale than fossil Y. In a flood it wouldnt be like that.

This professor of geology, John D Morris. He was geo-engineer, I dunno about professor. You cant be a pro geologist at a research level and an open creationist, you wouldnt be allowed to write a PhD from a creationist point of view for example, it would get chucked in the bin.

I dont know of any published research by creationists from a creationist point of view, in scientific journals. As I say, to be fair, the journals wouldn't entertain it. Put it this way, I would be very surprised if they did.

Mazz

September 21st, 2010, 12:26 PM

Manc: My speciality is astronomy. But there is the problem of the Cambrian explosion.....I'v heard the evolutionists explanation for I am not convinced at all about the way they try and get over this.

Also, what about polystrate fossils?

manc

September 23rd, 2010, 05:59 AM

Well, the Cambrian explosion may have been an explosion in geological terms, but it still took many millions of years. There was life before it, its just harder to find. In the Cambrian there was a lot of species appearing. Its quite possible that new species can appear suddenly in geological terms, even a million years is sudden in geological terms. the Cambrian explosion lasted 5 to 10 million years. Its alsdo possible that it wasnt so much of an explosion, just its harder to find earlier life. My guess is maybe favourable environmental conditions for a proliferation of life.

Polystrate fossils is a creationist term. They are trees that got rapidly buried in sediments, often when the land was subsiding at the time, or by volcanic dust.

Mazz

September 23rd, 2010, 08:46 AM

First: The polystrate fossils such as trees standing upright, or at an angle, go through several layers of strata. Supposedly these were laid down during millions of years, but one wonders how they stood up for so long before each layer of sediment was laid down and covered them completely. If they were rapidly buried as you say, then this agrees with the story of the world wide flood.

The Cambrian explosion has been admitted, by evolutionists, to be a problem.
The fossil record usually, according to the evolutionist, shows lower forms in the lower rock layers, and the higher forms in the higher rock layers. Here in the Cambrian rocks we find hundreds of species of animals, that have no lower forms beneath. They are just there, suddenly, not simple forms, but complex life, including trilobites, which in themselves present a problem to the evolutionist because there is no record to show any earlier transitional forms which you should find if indeed it had evolved from an earlier worm-like creature as some scientists suggest.....but have no proof.

DC3000X

September 24th, 2010, 01:51 PM

If someone started a debate on evolution would anyone be wiling to join? I would! So many people I know argue about wether evolution is real. Of course it's real, it's demonstrably factual.

Mazz

September 25th, 2010, 01:44 AM

DC3000X: Easy to say, hard to prove. So show us the evidence that you say that demonstrates that evolution is a proven fact.:coolsmiley:

manc

September 25th, 2010, 02:42 AM

First: The polystrate fossils such as trees standing upright, or at an angle, go through several layers of strata. Supposedly these were laid down during millions of years, but one wonders how they stood up for so long before each layer of sediment was laid down and covered them completely. If they were rapidly buried as you say, then this agrees with the story of the world wide flood.

Who says the layers took millions of years? The rate of deposition varies enormously, and occasionally it can be high, as I say, if the land is subsiding. Obviously the conditions were right for the tree to survive long enough to get buried upright. Imagine a tree in a valley, and the valley gets filled by a mudslide. The tree gets buried. Or they get buried by volcanic ash.

Yes they were rapidly buried, but that is a couple of fossil trees, not all of the rocks in the world!

Floods do happen, so do sea incursions, subsidence, mountain formation, land uplift, glaciation, desertification, you name it. All these processes happen and they take hundreds of millions of years as a whole. How long do you think it took for the Himalayas to from the collision of two continents? Try and imagine tow continents moving along and hitting each other, causing an 'upsplurge' of folding and uplift. Well the plates were moving at 15cm a year. This happened quite recently, about 70 mya. Obviously they are young as they are still standing. We had mountains that big maybe in England, but they have worn down a lot.

As for the Cambrian explosion being a 'problem'. Yea some scientists might have said that. Its up to them to explain why life proliferated suddenly on a geological time scale.

How does it fit in with a flood?

In fact how does anything fit in?

Lets go back to basics. Each layer of rock has different fossils, and this is the same all over the world. The oldest sedimentary rocks are precambrian, and they have primitive life, and they are at the bottom. As you come up, you get younger rocks with more advanced life.

Of course the oldest rocks are usually furthest down unless they have been uplifted or folded, and so less is known about them. Sedimentary rock that deep often get metamorphosed, so fossils would get destroyed. There are a few places in the UK where Precambrian sediments can be seen and contain fossils.

Most people, including those with training in the sciences, are not aware of the many assumptions that radiometric dating, the geologic column, and fossil interpretation use as foundations. Biologists assume that geologists have correctly identified the a

You are talking about the geological column that is supposed to support the idea that the layers of rocks and the fossils within them are in a uniform pattern.....lower rocks older, higher rocks younger, lower fossils older, higher fossils younger. In actual fact there is no geologic column, no where in the world will you find this lovely pattern present in the strata to prove evolution through the millions of years that evolution says it happened.

There are many assumptions used in radiometric dating and fossil interpretation. These assumptions are the foundation they use for their theory of evolution and millions of years. It is a foundation that is built on shifting sand.
Biologists assume that geologists have correctly identified the age of rocks. The geologists assume that the chemists have correctly identified the half-life of the different isotopes. Chemists assume that the physicists have correctly identified the details of radioactive decay. This chain of assumptions supporting evolution brings down the entire structure if any one of these assumptions in the links are weak or wrong.

And what of the Cambrian rocks, with no lower forms of life below them to fit in with their geologic column? And these primitive fossils are by no means simple, they are very complex life forms. Where did that complexity come from.....suddenly?

And the trees that are found upright in strata are supposedly going through several different strata which were laid down over millions of years. It is the scientists that are saying this.

Now for a fossil to have any chance of being preserved, it had to be laid down quickly....suddenly covered by water and sediment. Some fossils have been found looking as if they died in the actual burying, meaning death came after burial and not before. This testifies of a worldwide flood, as this phenomena is found worldwide. Some mountains even have fossils on their summits! How did they get there so high up? Only if the flood was total.

Sorry, I should have deleted my first effort at an answer in the first two lines (unfinished). Please ignore.

chadn737

September 25th, 2010, 09:14 AM

You are talking about the geological column that is supposed to support the idea that the layers of rocks and the fossils within them are in a uniform pattern.....lower rocks older, higher rocks younger, lower fossils older, higher fossils younger. In actual fact there is no geologic column, no where in the world will you find this lovely pattern present in the strata to prove evolution through the millions of years that evolution says it happened.

Of course you don't find a "this lovely pattern" because the Earth is not static. The plates are in constant motion, being stretched and shoved. This is how mountains are formed. There have been ice ages where massive glaciers have carved out entire valleys, throwing everything into chaos. There have been the effects of water erosion. There have been the effects of wind erosion.

If you expect that the strata form perfect little layers, with no "mixing of the contents" to any degree, then you are making unrealistic demands.

However, what we do know is that these geological layers do exist and form. These layers do correlate to radiometric dating. Specific fossil types can be found in specific layers, even with certain amounts of "mixing" due to the geological and erosional forces that I just mentioned.

That this pattern, as ugly as it may be at times, can be seen everywhere around the world, strengthens this argument.

Science is rarely ever based upon perfect results. Perfectly controlled experiments done by masters at the bench, still have degrees of error associated with them.

What makes the science credible, however, is that the results, despite the inherent error associated with every experiment or observation, can be reproduced, time and again under different conditions/locales.

There are many assumptions used in radiometric dating and fossil interpretation. These assumptions are the foundation they use for their theory of evolution and millions of years. It is a foundation that is built on shifting sand.
Biologists assume that geologists have correctly identified the age of rocks. The geologists assume that the chemists have correctly identified the half-life of the different isotopes. Chemists assume that the physicists have correctly identified the details of radioactive decay. This chain of assumptions supporting evolution brings down the entire structure if any one of these assumptions in the links are weak or wrong.

So what are these "assumptions" and more importantly can you demonstrate why it is wrong to hold that "assumption", that the data backing it is faulty?

Or do you expect me to simply take you at you're word? If so, then take me at my word, the "assumptions" are based on solid science.

And what of the Cambrian rocks, with no lower forms of life below them to fit in with their geologic column? And these primitive fossils are by no means simple, they are very complex life forms. Where did that complexity come from.....suddenly?

Canalization is the ability to produce the same phenotype, despite variation in the genotype or the environment. The idea here is that the genome has to a certain degree, enough "buffer" to resist the effects of minor mutations or small changes in the environment.

Stabilizing Selection is natural selection that tends to eliminate extremes in variation. It selects for certain traits and helps maintain those traits. Its part of the force behind Canalization, because it favors the same phenotype and will drive a population to have that phenotype, even given slight variations in genotype and environment.

Disruptive Selection selects for the extremes of phenotype.

Cryptic Variation (Hidden Variation) is genetic variation, such as mutant alleles that are not apparent in the phenotype because they are "masked." One example of this is temperature sensitive mutants. These are mutations in a gene, that under normal temperature conditions appear to be no different than any other individual of that species. So despite having that mutation, it is hidden and not apparent in the phenotype. Now when exposed to higher temperatures, the mutation disrupts the normal gene function and is now apparent in the phenotype and not hidden. The idea here is that mutations that confer new phenotypes can exist without being apparent under normal conditions. This ties back into the first term Canalization.

So imagine this.

A world where most of life is pretty simple. Conditions are stable, resulting in stabilizing selection. Due to canalization, the same phenotypes are produced despite accumulations in mutant genotypes, leading to a large amount of cryptic variation in the population.

Then, the environment changes. Conditions get extreme and the "normal phenotype" is no longer sufficient to survive. Disruptive selection comes into effect, selecting for extremes in phenotype that have the ability to survive. All that cryptic variation that existed in the genome is now able to create new phenotypes because the forces that kept it hidden before are now disrupted due to the changing environment.

Because the mutation already exists in the population, these phenotypes can arise very rapidly.

So in a relatively short amount of time, you have a large amount of diversity and dare I say complexity.

Not saying that this is how it happened, but this is how it could have happened. The point is, that there are well established ideas in biology that can account for such explosions in diversity.

And the trees that are found upright in strata are supposedly going through several different strata which were laid down over millions of years. It is the scientists that are saying this.

Who is saying this. How many layers? Where is you're support?

You are not considering all the geological forces in effect. When the plates of the Earth are moving and squashing/stretching everything, when erosion washes away rock, etc; there's going to be a certain degree of mixing in the geological layers.

Now for a fossil to have any chance of being preserved, it had to be laid down quickly....suddenly covered by water and sediment. Some fossils have been found looking as if they died in the actual burying, meaning death came after burial and not before. This testifies of a worldwide flood, as this phenomena is found worldwide. Some mountains even have fossils on their summits! How did they get there so high up? Only if the flood was total.

Mountains form when plates ram into each other. This forces the plates to "scrunch" forcing wrinkles in the plate. Get a piece of paper. Lay it flat on a table. From two opposite directions, push inward on the paper. What happens? It folds up in the middle. That fold was once flat on the table, now its higher than the rest of the paper. Thats how mountains form.

Imagine the top of the mountain once being flat and even with the rest of the Earth. Then it got scrunched just like that paper. So once what was seabed is now mountaintop. Its that easy.

manc

September 25th, 2010, 09:51 AM

You are talking about the geological column that is supposed to support the idea that the layers of rocks and the fossils within them are in a uniform pattern.....lower rocks older, higher rocks younger, lower fossils older, higher fossils younger. In actual fact there is no geologic column, no where in the world will you find this lovely pattern present in the strata to prove evolution through the millions of years that evolution says it happened.

Of course there is, thats the whole point. You find it ALL over the world. Well obviously there is regional variation, but you basically find the same fossil sequence everywhere.

And what of the Cambrian rocks, with no lower forms of life below them to fit in with their geologic column? And these primitive fossils are by no means simple, they are very complex life forms. Where did that complexity come from.....suddenly?

I already explained that, see post 82

And the trees that are found upright in strata are supposedly going through several different strata which were laid down over millions of years. It is the scientists that are saying this.

show me where a geologist says this! Thats rubbish. I already explained this phenomenon. Give me some specifics if you want.

Now for a fossil to have any chance of being preserved, it had to be laid down quickly....suddenly covered by water and sediment. Some fossils have been found looking as if they died in the actual burying, meaning death came after burial and not before. This testifies of a worldwide flood, as this phenomena is found worldwide. Some mountains even have fossils on their summits! How did they get there so high up? Only if the flood was total.

This is rubbish Mazz, I already explained so-called polystrate fossils, yes some of the did get buried in floods. Does this mean that all geologu on earth was on big flood? No! Why am I repeating myself?

Of course mountains have fossils at the top, I explained how mountains are formed. All rocks apart from volcanic are sedimentary in origin, which means they are formed from the older rocks which have been worn down into sediments. The sediments get compacted into rocks at the bottom of seas or on land. Then these layers of sedimentary rock get uplifted to form continents. They tend to be lighter than ocean crust. Yes i did say some are formed at the bottom of seas, but only near the coast.

Anyway, continental crust is lighter than ocean crust, and if two continents collide they splurge up into mountain chains. Some of the rock gets heavily heated and compressed, we call this metamorphic rock. Fossils probably wouldn't survive that. But some is just uplifted and folded so it will contain fossils. Of course mountains can also form where ocean crust dives under continental crust as well. Also magma intrusions below can push up the rock. There is ample evidence of plate tectonics, even the creationists accept it, they just think it happened at ridiculous speeds and then suddenly slowed down. Continental crust is granitic in origin, and is less dense than ocean crust which is basaltic. You need to read a bit on plate tectonics.

chadn737:
Of course you don't find a "this lovely pattern" because the Earth is not static. The plates are in constant motion, being stretched and shoved. This is how mountains are formed. There have been ice ages where massive glaciers have carved out entire valleys, throwing everything into chaos. There have been the effects of water erosion. There have been the effects of wind erosion.

This is exactly what happened at the time of the flood as well. And this is also a problem for the theory of evolution. There has been a lot of plate movements etc in the earth since the time of the flood, let alone when it happened, and therefore the rock strata that we find with fossils embedded within them are not uniform. Some of the upper layers have been actually 'dated' as older than the lower ones! Dating rocks is not as easy as evolution makes it out to be.

That this pattern, as ugly as it may be at times, can be seen everywhere around the world, strengthens this argument.

You seem to have contradicted your earlier statement. Patterns aren't ugly, they are either there or not. Anything that is 'ugly' cannot by definition be a pattern.
But evolutionists try and tell us that there is this pattern. That lower rocks are older than higher ones. But with all this movement going on for millions of years one would find, literally, chaos.
But if the world wide flood happened, what we would find is what the rocks and fossils show us today.

Science is rarely ever based upon perfect results. Perfectly controlled experiments done by masters at the bench, still have degrees of error associated with them.

Which means they could get wrong results.

What makes the science credible, however, is that the results, despite the inherent error associated with every experiment or observation, can be reproduced, time and again under different conditions/locales.

What experiments have produced results to show that evolution has occurred?

So what are these "assumptions" and more importantly can you demonstrate why it is wrong to hold that "assumption", that the data backing it is faulty?

These are some of the assumptions that are used in the radiometric dating methods.
1. It is assumed that the rate of decay has always been constant but modern research shows that it is not. In most cases decay occurs rapidly at first and slows down later. A number of factors might have changed the rate of decay over the past thousands of years. One such important factor could have been a traumatic environmental change in the past such as the catastrophic flood in the days of Noah.
2. It is assumed that the initial quality of the parent element (the first element in the chain) is known, but it is not; this is mainly guesswork. We do no know how much of the original rock was uranium for example, and how much lead was already present initially.
3. It is assumed that the system under study is an isolated system. This means that the lead in our example came only from the uranium and this gives the very big age. Dr. Melvin Cook, a Nobel award winner for his research in this field, found out that the lead does not come from uranium only, as assumed, and he applied a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods. A Cambrian rock dated at 600 million years, gave a figure of several thousand years when this correction was applied to the method. (Cook, M. Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parish, London. 1966.)
Even with all the assumptions in place, radiometric dating methods applied to the same rock have given answers varying by hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists pick and choose the figures that fit with their preconceived idea about the age of the rock in question. This has actually been pointed out by a number of evolutionists.

I will post this now and will have to come back to your further points later.

manc

September 25th, 2010, 11:03 AM

Ok , lets just take a brief look at one of the geological ages. In England, if you go to places like Yorkshire you will see a lot of limestone, often containing fossils. This was formed in the Carboniferous period, which lasted from about 359 mya to 299 mya. This rock was deposited at the bottom of shallow seas and is made up of dead animals, shells and hard parts of millions of them. The visible fossils are things like crinoids and brachiopods. The rocks have obviously been uplifted, and have been tilted and folded. Since it was uplifted it has been exposed to water which dissolves it and creates huge caves underground.

In the middle of the Carboniferous, a drop in sea level caused a major mass extinction event.

In Europe and North America, carboniferous rock are a repeated sequence of limestone, sandstone, shale and coal beds. The coal was formed in swamps and forests.

On land, large amphibians lived.

The continents were grouped near the south pole, so there was a lot of glaciation over much of the continents. The glaciers were up to 8,000 feet thick.

The cycles of land and marine rocks are due to repeated sea incursions.

Most of the worlds coal was formed in this period, in huge tropical swamps. These swamps would get flooded by the sea, repeatedly. So you get lots of repeated cycles of coal, then shallow marine life, then sand (from river deltas) and then coal. All this of course took many millions of years. Hundreds of these series occur. There is only one cause - repeated ice ages raising and lowering the sea level. The rock in the south pole region shows evidence of glaciation.

That set of circumstances never happened again which is why nearly all the coal is from this period.

Why the cycles of glaciation? Well you have things called Milancovitch cycles, slight shifts in the earth's tilt etc which happen every 21,000 years, 26,000 years, and 41,000 years. There are other factors such as climate change as a feedback etc.

Is it starting to make sense? This took tens of millions of years, not a couple of exceptionally rainy weeks.

Mazz

September 26th, 2010, 12:45 AM

chadn737: Thankyou for all the technical information. This does not convince me that mutations can prove macro evolution. And as you say:

Not saying that this is how it happened, but this is how it could have happened. The point is, that there are well established ideas in biology that can account for such explosions in diversity.

When we talk about an explosion, we are talking about something that happens suddenly and immediately, by some powerful cause, evolution by mutation does not, and cannot, come close to explaining the very sudden appearance of these life forms in the Cambrian rocks.

And concerning polystrate fossilised trees, you asked:
Who is saying this. How many layers? Where is you're support?

I will have to come back to you on this as I haven't time to look up all this information this morning.

Imagine the top of the mountain once being flat and even with the rest of the Earth. Then it got scrunched just like that paper. So once what was seabed is now mountaintop. Its that easy.

Mountains were in existence before the flood as the Genesis account tells us, so it is possible that when the waters receded after the global flood they would have had fossils buried there and survived there until this day. When were the Himalaya's formed, or other mountain ranges? For those who believe in thousands and not millions of years, Noah's flood is the time, we believe, when much of earth's large upheavals, uplifts and earthquakes occurred. The Genesis account confirms this.

manc:
Most of the worlds coal was formed in this period, in huge tropical swamps. These swamps would get flooded by the sea, repeatedly. So you get lots of repeated cycles of coal, then shallow marine life, then sand (from river deltas) and then coal. All this of course took many millions of years.

How do you know it was millions of years. Read my explanation about why radiometric dating methods are built on assumptions and cannot be trusted.

Why the cycles of glaciation? Well you have things called Milancovitch cycles, slight shifts in the earth's tilt etc which happen every 21,000 years, 26,000 years, and 41,000 years. There are other factors such as climate change as a feedback etc.

I agree that there are cycles......in the sun. That is why we are having a change in temperature now. The sun goes through cycles and creates colder and then hotter weather. I can't remember the year, but it was like a mini ice-age in Britain, this was due to the sun. But it still does not prove millions of years. These cycles can happen in only hundreds of years or even less as some records I have seen have shown. (Can't get the data as this was seen on a programme on the television).

Is it starting to make sense? This took tens of millions of years, not a couple of exceptionally rainy weeks.

If you are talking about the 'rainy weeks' of Noah's day, it was more than just heavy rain that occurred during this time. If you read the Genesis account you will see that there was a lot of geological upheaval at the time too.

manc

September 26th, 2010, 03:58 AM

How does this explain the repeated series of coal, marine sediments and sand? The forests would have to have time to keep growing back on top of the marine coastal sediments.

The warming we are seeing now is not due to Milancovitch cycles, its due to CO2. There were some localised rapid glacial melting events which were most likely due to switches in ocean currents.

There are several web sites that give information on the belief in a quick burial thus producing polystrate fossil trees as well as animals, this is one link you can go to:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/184

manc

September 26th, 2010, 06:06 AM

Mazz, I already said they must be buried quick. That doesnt mean everything in geological history happened that quick. You need to get into specifics to take this further. A landslide can fill a depression in a few minutes.

You need to read some real geology. Anything. Take the limestone I was on about. It gets weathered by rainwater. The rainwater then deposits stalagmites and stalactites, you must have heard of them. Well people measure things like that, to see how fast they are being formed. The rate is about 1 cm per 200 years, assuming a steady rate. There is no reason I know of to think it has slowed down, unless the chemistry of the water has changed drastically. But rainwater is fairly pure normally. Its simply a matter of water dripping and leaving minute deposits. So the rate has been calculated and it means some could be millions of years old.

Have a look at Goredale Scar. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45951840@N00/2815391022/) This is a valley near Malham. There is evidence that this was a huge cave, and the roof collapsed. These things take time.

Britain was covered by a thick sheet of ice on and off for the last 100,000 years, the glaciers carved huge U-shaped valleys (rivers carve V shaped ones). They left piles of moraine. They left scratch marks. There hasnt even been any ice in the last 10,000 years. How does flood theory account for this?

Mazz

September 26th, 2010, 10:28 AM

I'v already told you I'm not too good with geology, perhaps because it isn't a subject I have a lot of interest in. I read a lot about these things but my main interest is in the skies rather than the earth itself. I do however read and listen to much about the theory of evolution and particularly about how it is supposed to work according to the evolutionary scientists. But as far as the fossil evidence is concerned and the process by which evolution is supposed to work, it falls far short of evidence that should be there to prove it an actual fact.

In the end it is all down to interpretation.

manc

September 26th, 2010, 12:00 PM

I'v already told you I'm not too good with geology, perhaps because it isn't a subject I have a lot of interest in. I read a lot about these things but my main interest is in the skies rather than the earth itself. I do however read and listen to much about the theory of evolution and particularly about how it is supposed to work according to the evolutionary scientists. But as far as the fossil evidence is concerned and the process by which evolution is supposed to work, it falls far short of evidence that should be there to prove it an actual fact.

In the end it is all down to interpretation.

Well if you aren't interested in geology, steer clear of so-called 'flood geology'. Personally I am trained in geology so its easy. I actually spent 6 weeks in the field mapping carboniferous limestone. Plus I used to be a climber. Have you ever seen many cliffs close up, got your hands on them?

Imagine how long it would take to lay down deposits, uplift them into huge mountains, and then when they are mostly worn away, you are left with this

The key question maybe to ponder on is why are there different fossils in different layers? If it was all one flood you would expect more or less every animal in every layer, all mixed up.

chadn737

September 26th, 2010, 04:49 PM

This is exactly what happened at the time of the flood as well. And this is also a problem for the theory of evolution. There has been a lot of plate movements etc in the earth since the time of the flood, let alone when it happened, and therefore the rock strata that we find with fossils embedded within them are not uniform. Some of the upper layers have been actually 'dated' as older than the lower ones! Dating rocks is not as easy as evolution makes it out to be.

1) Evolution is not about dating rocks.

2) Evolution, hell science, has never claimed that dating methods are easy. You imply that claim, but the reason you imply it is to be dismissive of the hard work that has gone into come to these conclusions.

3) Assuming a young earth, then the rate of plate movements becomes an inconsequential matter. Plate tectonics only comes into play when you consider an old earth. So you can't argue both ways, that plate tectonics is a complicating factor when you assume a young earth. You contradict yourself when you do this.

You seem to have contradicted your earlier statement. Patterns aren't ugly, they are either there or not. Anything that is 'ugly' cannot by definition be a pattern.
But evolutionists try and tell us that there is this pattern. That lower rocks are older than higher ones. But with all this movement going on for millions of years one would find, literally, chaos.
But if the world wide flood happened, what we would find is what the rocks and fossils show us today.
Contradiction it is not. Patterns can be ugly and they can be pretty. Some patterns are very uniform and easily recognized. For example the patterns one seen in a quilt. Other patterns are less obvious and have to be determined by computational methods, such as meaningful sequences in regulatory regions of DNA. When I say "ugly" I am not being contradictory, I am referring to the fact that these patterns are not perfect, but require careful study and in depth knowledge to recognize and make use of them.

And considering the environmental factors of erosion and plate movement, The degree of "mixing" is what one would expect to see in billion year old rocks. Not a 6000 year old earth.

Which means they could get wrong results.Of course, but thats where reproducibility of results come in. The fact that radiometric dating has been accurately reproduced thousands of times, confirms it.

Its a matter of statistics. Do something once, you have a high degree of error. But with every added sample or replicate of the test, you're results become statistically more significant.

What experiments have produced results to show that evolution has occurred?Genome sequencing. We can do direct comparison of genomes and one thing that can be determined from these comparisons is the existence of syntentic blocks. These are stretches of chromosomes that have similarity in the number, order, and types of genes. That such blocks exist between different species demonstrates a common genetic ancestry along with showing us what sorts of chromosomal rearrangements have occurred during speciation.

The development of novel traits in a species has been demonstrated experimentally in the lab using microorganisms.

The development of something as complex as endosymbiosis (see endsymbiotic theory and how mitochondria/chloroplasts developed) has been demonstrated in the lab using bacteria and amoeba (see Dr. Kwang Jeon of the University of Tennessee). In this instance, the bacteria not only reproduce with the amoeba (they've been having this mutualism for generations now) but have become essential to the survival of the amoeba.

These are just a few of the many experimental demonstrations that I could give you.

These are some of the assumptions that are used in the radiometric dating methods.
1. It is assumed that the rate of decay has always been constant but modern research shows that it is not. In most cases decay occurs rapidly at first and slows down later. A number of factors might have changed the rate of decay over the past thousands of years. One such important factor could have been a traumatic environmental change in the past such as the catastrophic flood in the days of Noah.Could you point out specifically which research demonstrates this.

1) Radiometric dating has been done thousands of times, in numerous labs, in every part of the world. If decay rates were not constant, one would expect there to be a great deal of disagreement in these experiments. Rather, there is a great deal of agreement and typically variation can be attributed to error on the part of researchers, not due to inaccuracies in the method or the determined half-lives.

2) The decay rates determined here on Earth correspond to the decay rates of radioactive isotopes produced by supernova. This is important because these sources of radioactive isotopes are coming from outside our solar system, and therefore are not subject to any of the environmental changes you claim can effect radiometric dating. We can also correspond these decay rates to the distance in light years that these supernova are from the Earth.

3) There have been attempts to experimentally alter decay rates (Pertubation of Nuclear Decay Rates, G.T. Emery, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 1972). The results of these findings is that the half-lives are largely unaffected by external factors.

4) This has also been affirmed by studies of the Oklo natural reactor in Gabon. Here, studies of the isotope ratios are unique because this was the site of nuclear fission reactions in nature several billion years ago. The isotope ratios here confirm the decay rates observed in laboratories.

5) Lavas of known age (because we know historically when the volcanoes went off) have been used to test the results of radiometric dating methods against them. The dates given by radiometric dating (of several different methods) corresponds to the known dates of the volcanic eruptions.

6) These methods correspond to ice cores, Electron spin resonance (which can go back as far as two million years), Cosmic-ray exposure dating (which can go back as far as 10 million years to a billion years depending on the type of meteorite being used), and others

7) With multiple isotopes, if the decay rates changed over time, one would expect the different isotopes methods to disagree with one another. The opposite is true and the various methods correspond to each other. To argue that the decay rates change, you must also accept that decay rates for everyone of the many radioisotopes used change at the same time to the same degree. That is simply implausible.

2. It is assumed that the initial quality of the parent element (the first element in the chain) is known, but it is not; this is mainly guesswork. We do no know how much of the original rock was uranium for example, and how much lead was already present initially.The amount of "parent element" can be known by doing the math based on the ratio of the parent to daughter element.

Now of course there may be some "daughter element" present alongside the parent element to begin with, but this too can be determined. For example in the case of potassium-argon, the amount of argon-40 present to begin with can be determined by the amount of argon-36 present. Argon-40 and argon-36 exist in the atmosphere at a constant ratio. So by knowing the amount of argon-36, one can determine the amount of argon-40 already present, and subtract that to get the amount of argon-40 resulting from decay of potassium-40.

Additionally, there is what is known as the Argon-Argon method to determine exactly how much of the Argon is derived from Potassium-40 decay. This is done by forcing the potassium-39 in the sample to decay to argon-39 by bombardment with neutrons. The sample is then heated to test the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39. If the ratio is constant, then the argon-40 present is due to Potassium decay.

In other methods, such as Rubidium-Strontium, the ratio of strontium 87 to strontium 86 is constant at the time the rock forms. Testing this ratio can accurately determine how much of strontium 87 was present prior and how much is due to Rubidium 87 decay.

In the case of Uranium-lead. You have U235 decaying to lead 207. U238 decays to lead 206, and then there is thorium 232 that decays to lead 208. This means that one can actually obtain 3 different independent measurements from this method, which can be used to corroborate each other.

So, lets dispense with this notion that we cannot know the amount of daughter material or cannot make accurate measurements from these methods.

3. It is assumed that the system under study is an isolated system. This means that the lead in our example came only from the uranium and this gives the very big age. Dr. Melvin Cook, a Nobel award winner for his research in this field, found out that the lead does not come from uranium only, as assumed, and he applied a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods. A Cambrian rock dated at 600 million years, gave a figure of several thousand years when this correction was applied to the method. (Cook, M. Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parish, London. 1966.)
Even with all the assumptions in place, radiometric dating methods applied to the same rock have given answers varying by hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists pick and choose the figures that fit with their preconceived idea about the age of the rock in question. This has actually been pointed out by a number of evolutionists.1) Melvin Cook did not receive a Nobel. He got the "Nitro Nobel Gold Medal" which is an award given by the Niro Nobel company for work done in explosives. Nor did he receive the award for research into radiometric dating. He got the award for the discovery of slurry explosives.

You're facts are just plain wrong.

2) Can you give examples of specific instances where the dates have varied so wildly and where the reason was not due to human error, sloppy work, or some other accounted for explanation?

3) Which evolutionists have pointed this out?

By the way, there is an excellent explanation and defense of Radiometric dating here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2023

Its a publication from the American Scientific Affiliation. This is an organization composed primarily of Scientists who are declared believers in Christ. Their ranks include the likes of Francis Collins, Jennifer Wiseman, Rick Potts, and many more notable scientists. So this is not coming from a group that is hostile to religion or faith.

When we talk about an explosion, we are talking about something that happens suddenly and immediately, by some powerful cause, evolution by mutation does not, and cannot, come close to explaining the very sudden appearance of these life forms in the Cambrian rocks. When we are talking about explosion as in the Cambrian rocks, you're talking about a time period that is immediate only in relation to geological time (billions of years) as a whole. In this context, the millions of years during which the Cambrian explosion took place is immediate and short, but its still spans millions of years.

One of the reasons I raised those terms is because these facets of evolution actually extend the amount of time for mutations to occur. Many of the mutations leading to the Cambian explosion could have developed prior and would have existed in the population for quite some time, before changing environmental conditions caused these mutations to give rise to novel phenotypes.

Furthermore, there is an inherent assumption that it takes many many mutations to develop new phenotypes.

That is wrong. Mutations in regulatory regions or regulatory genes can have whats called pleiotropy. So mutating a single gene can cause multiple very drastic developmental effects. It is not so much that there is a distinct gene for every trait or step. Consider that the human genome encodes for somewhere around 20,000-25,000 genes. That is actually very small considering all that we are composed of, all that goes on. Much diversity then comes not from how many genes, but how and when those genes are expressed, how much of them are expressed, what they are co-expressed with, and the networks present in the cell at that time, etc.

So a few mutations, altering when or where genes are expressed can give rise to a great degree diversity.

So, I think you are overestimating the amount of mutation needed to produce the Cambrian explosion and underestimating the amount of time available for it to occur in.

Mountains were in existence before the flood as the Genesis account tells us, so it is possible that when the waters receded after the global flood they would have had fossils buried there and survived there until this day. When were the Himalaya's formed, or other mountain ranges? For those who believe in thousands and not millions of years, Noah's flood is the time, we believe, when much of earth's large upheavals, uplifts and earthquakes occurred. The Genesis account confirms this. You accuse evolutionists for making assumptions on radiometric dating, but that is based on years of accumulated data from multiple experiments.

Are you not making even bigger and grander assumptions here, based on less evidence?

Mazz

September 27th, 2010, 12:09 AM

Manc:
Well if you aren't interested in geology, steer clear of so-called 'flood geology'.

Absolutely. But my knowledge of geology, such as it is, does not invalidate what I believe the Bible tells us about the flood. But what we find buried in those supposed millions of years of strata is a good indication that it happened, and that it was world wide.

The key question maybe to ponder on is why are there different fossils in different layers? If it was all one flood you would expect more or less every animal in every layer, all mixed up.

As you said yourself that has been a lot of movement in the earth, and there have been other floods since Noah's day, but the general picture is of millions of dead animals that were buried very rapidly, now found in rock layers all over the world. Some fossils show that death was swift, even some, like animals that are in the process of eating, or giving birth. Suddenly drowned.

Imagine how long it would take to lay down deposits, uplift them into huge mountains, and then when they are mostly worn away, you are left with this

3) Assuming a young earth, then the rate of plate movements becomes an inconsequential matter. Plate tectonics only comes into play when you consider an old earth. So you can't argue both ways, that plate tectonics is a complicating factor when you assume a young earth. You contradict yourself when you do this.

That is only when you don't take into account the upheaval within the earth and the moving of land masses when the flood occurred. There was a lot more going on then than a heavy downpour when the flood came. And leaving God out of the equation means you discount what He did at this time. You are then only left with a naturalistic explanation, but that results in a false interpretation of evidence.

The fact that radiometric dating has been accurately reproduced thousands of times, confirms it.

And how do they check that these dates are accurate?
Dates for rocks can often produce different results, even millions of years difference. That's a lot of difference! How do they know that they are right?

These are just a few of the many experimental demonstrations that I could give you.

But do they really show macro evolution or just small changes within species?

No one is disputing that there are changes, but these changes do not prove Blob to Bob, from a lower life form to a higher. It is not convincing.

The results of these findings is that the half-lives are largely unaffected by external factors.

What about time itself?

Be back later...

Mazz

September 27th, 2010, 05:13 AM

chadn737:
Now of course there may be some "daughter element" present alongside the parent element to begin with, but this too can be determined.

The problem with all these dating methods is that there is an element of uncertainty which could drastically change the results of any test.

I am limited in the ability to explain all this as I am not a scientist nor an expert in any of the main fields. I get all my information from those who are. I have a book that is fairly technical called ''Thousands not billions'' by a physics professor at Grace College, Winona Lake, IN., who has written several other books on science and the Bible. In his book he questions the age of the earth and therefore challenges the theory of evolution. Though he has gone into depth about this subject of dating and half life's I could not attempt to explain what he has shown from his research. But he speaks a lot about radioisotopes and explains why he believes in thousands of years for the age of the earth and not billions.
I could of course quote from the book, but it would take up a lot of space!! :coolsmiley:

2) Can you give examples of specific instances where the dates have varied so wildly and where the reason was not due to human error, sloppy work, or some other accounted for explanation?

3) Which evolutionists have pointed this out?

You are assuming that there will be evolutionists that believe in a young earth.....otherwise why would they challenge the old age of the earth?
I will look into my files to find the details that you ask for, I can't get them off the top of my head! ;):

manc

September 27th, 2010, 07:06 AM

I don't think you are interested in finding out the truth to be honest Manx. If you were you would try to get you head around the fact that to 99.99999% of scientists 'flood geology' is quite frankly laughable. Well, I tried to give you a few starting points, but you aren't even listening.

chadn737

September 27th, 2010, 07:21 AM

I don't think you are interested in finding out the truth to be honest Manx. If you were you would try to get you head around the fact that to 99.99999% of scientists 'flood geology' is quite frankly laughable. Well, I tried to give you a few starting points, but you aren't even listening

Despite my own opinion on the topic myself, I find this argument to just plain suck.

So what if 99.99999% of scientists find it laughable. Scientists are not immune to being stuck into paradigms of their own making and unable to accept radical and contrary concepts.

I'll take an example from evolutionary biology and the longstanding opinion regarding "Lamarckism" as laughable. Lamarcks original theories are far more subtle than nearly all scientists realize because it has been so badly caricatured for so long. So strongly has been the stigma against any hint of Lamarckism that evolutionary biology has long been resistant to any idea of an acquired trait being inherited. Fortunately, molecular biologists and the more molecular geneticists have not been so indoctrinated into the ruling paradigms that they would reject this idea. That is why our knowledge of epigenetics has largely come from the molecular fields and not the evolutionary biologists. Even today, where epigenetic changes are becoming a major field of genetic/genomic research, surprisingly little has been mentioned in the evolution research on how epigenetics may have influenced evolution. Why not? Its because the stigma of Lamarckism still exists and few are willing to accept that he may have been right about some things.

This should not be construed to mean that evolution is wrong or bunk, what it illustrates is the absence of thought that goes into using an argument like "most scientists believe it to be true." I admit to having used the argument before, primarily in Global Warming debates, but now realize that I was just being lazy.

manc

September 27th, 2010, 07:47 AM

Lazy? Have you seen how much I have written? I explained the same thing several times, and to be honest it felt like it was going in one ear and out the other. Absence of thought? I spent hours explaining some of the basics. Mazz does not want to change, its as simple as that.

I explained in some detail quite a few bits, you can read it for yourself. To take it further you would need to google something like cyclothems and see what the YECists are saying. I would respond to an attempt to do that, but Mazz says he neither can nor wants to.

If you read the thread you will see for example that I explained 'polystrate' fossils about 3 times over, and it was like I never wrote it.

People like Mazz seem to be under the impression that there are serious numbers of scientists who doubt the mainstream view. Its the same with climate sceptics. Its important to point out to them that this simply is NOT TRUE.

I dont care about 'appeals to authority'. I did a university honours degree in geology. I AM an authority. (well, more than Joe Bloggs anyway)

Its hard to find refutations of creationist stuff, because most scientists simply don't have the time to waste arguing against this rubbish.

Mazz

September 27th, 2010, 11:34 AM

chadn737:
Scientists are not immune to being stuck into paradigms of their own making and unable to accept radical and contrary concepts.

I absolutely agree. And I guess we could bandy back and forth about what one scientist said against another, but it is all down to interpretation of the evidence that we have, and I have not seen evidence in the fossil record to convince me that evolution ever happened.

And just one more point, with a half life of 5,730 years, C-14 should no longer exist within ''ancient'' fossils, carbonate rocks or coal, yet small quantities of C-14 are indeed found in such samples on a worldwide scale. This also includes diamonds. Measurable levels of C-14 are found in every case for both coal and diamond samples. This evidence alone proves that there is a limited age for the earth. The carbon-14 findings strongly support a recent supernatural creation.

And I would like to add that there are many scientists out there, who are also Christians who not only believe in a young earth but have the qualifications and knowledge to back up their claims.

chadn737

September 27th, 2010, 12:04 PM

I absolutely agree. And I guess we could bandy back and forth about what one scientist said against another, but it is all down to interpretation of the evidence that we have, and I have not seen evidence in the fossil record to convince me that evolution ever happened.

The real question is when presented with the evidence, do you understand it. Its easy to be unconvinced when unfamiliar with knowledge necessary to interpret the data. I don't pretend to be an expert in radiometric dating, but I understand genetics and know the evidence from that end and it convinced me some time ago to abandon young earth creationism.

And I would like to add that there are many scientists out there, who are also Christians who not only believe in a young earth but have the qualifications and knowledge to back up their claims.

So what?

That is exactly the point of my argument to Manc. Arguments of this form do not prove anything. So what if you can find 1 in 1000 biologists who believes in a young Earth, what have you proven? The only thing you've demonstrated is that you can cherry pick people who support you (whose qualifications as experts are questionable in the least), not that you have a grasp of the data or that the data supports you.

I'll get back to addressing your arguments against the points I have raised when yo finish addressing those that I have raised.

Several times I've seen you drop this argument, but who are these "experts." I think you're understanding and my understanding of who has the expertise differ. For example, you name-dropped Melvin Cook who has no expertise in radiometric dating and who did not win a Nobel for work in this area as you claimed.

If you want to play the name drop game/cherry-pic your expert game, go ahead, I guarantee you that I know of more experts in evolutionary biology, who actually work in the field and continue to work in the field than you can google.

By the way, since people like to play the expert numbers games. You will find a higher percentage of Christians in relevant scientific disciplines (Biology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Geology) who of course are not only noted experts, but are also proponents of evolutionary theory.

So how about a challenge. Who are these experts that you keep claiming to support you and what are their qualifications in these fields. We'll pit them up against my lists of experts.

Mazz

September 28th, 2010, 01:10 AM

chadn737:
That is exactly the point of my argument to Manc. Arguments of this form do not prove anything. So what if you can find 1 in 1000 biologists who believes in a young Earth, what have you proven? The only thing you've demonstrated is that you can cherry pick people who support you (whose qualifications as experts are questionable in the least), not that you have a grasp of the data or that the data supports you.

If these arguments don't prove anything, at least to you, then it's a waste of time continuing with it isn't it. You have already made your mind up that anyone who believes in a young earth has questionable qualifications, so what would be the point in giving you any. This clearly shows the real bias and prejudice within the scientific world. I'v seen it before and I shall probably see it again.
It's not that I can't give you a few names at the least, but I'll let you think that you have won the argument. I am still confident in what I believe.

I guarantee you that I know of more experts in evolutionary biology, who actually work in the field and continue to work in the field than you can google.

You see my point? :sly: Complete prejudice.

We'll pit them up against my lists of experts.

I am not into playing these kind of games. I'll let you think you have won. :coolsmiley:

Manc:
I don't think you are interested in finding out the truth to be honest Manx.

You mean, you don't think I am interested in finding out your 'truth', and my name is Mazz. No, because I know your 'truth' is in error. I found the Truth a long time ago and I realised that the theory of evolution wasn't an established fact not long after that, though scientists are still desperate to find those missing links which are still missing. Links that prove that evolution was a chain of natural events leading up to the variety of life we have on the earth today. I may not be an expert in geology or dating methods, but I have eyes to see that all that we see in this world today could not have come by mere chance, without a Supreme Being Who created it all. It is too harmonious to be chance.
Evolution and a godless theory is built on the sand of assumptions and probabilities, nothing more.

Mazz

September 28th, 2010, 03:37 AM

chadn737: PS: If you really want to check some creationist scientists out I do have a list of well over 100 of them, of course they are listed on a well known creationist web site, so bias is already in place for you to discredit them, without checking their expertise and qualifications.:sly:

manc:
I explained the same thing several times, and to be honest it felt like it was going in one ear and out the other. Absence of thought? I spent hours explaining some of the basics. Mazz does not want to change, its as simple as that.

I know the feeling well! :coolsmiley:

Its hard to find refutations of creationist stuff, because most scientists simply don't have the time to waste arguing against this rubbish.

So you don't count Richard Dawkins? He is an avid fighter against everything to do with God especially creation. Who else would have posters put on buses in Britain to say: ''There is probably no God, so don't worry about it.'' He hasn't got the guts to say, ''There is no God,'' which does allow some doubt. He has written sseveral books to try and prove that God doesn't exist, including ''The God delusion'', one wonders who really is deluded. :coolsmiley:
But he makes me laugh!:grin:

So how about a challenge. Who are these experts that you keep claiming to support you and what are their qualifications in these fields. We'll pit them up against my lists of experts.

Well you dont need to as virtually all scientists in these areas are not YECs. Im certainly not gonna list all the geologists who exist, there are thousands and thousands.

Manc:
I don't think you are interested in finding out the truth to be honest Manx.

You mean, you don't think I am interested in finding out your 'truth', and my name is Mazz. No, because I know your 'truth' is in error. I found the Truth a long time ago and I realised that the theory of evolution wasn't an established fact not long after that, though scientists are still desperate to find those missing links which are still missing. Links that prove that evolution was a chain of natural events leading up to the variety of life we have on the earth today. I may not be an expert in geology or dating methods, but I have eyes to see that all that we see in this world today could not have come by mere chance, without a Supreme Being Who created it all. It is too harmonious to be chance.
Evolution and a godless theory is built on the sand of assumptions and probabilities, nothing more.

Sorry, Mazz. You KNOW my truth is in error? You dont know hardly anything about geology. You wont get stuck into the details. Its not a hard subject to get stuck into on a basic level, anyone can get their head around the basics.

I repeat a basic question for you to try to answer. Why are different fossils found in different beds, with the simplest at the bottom etc.

Honestly, you are deluded. You know my old man got me into geology and that he is a strong christian. Why make life hard for yourself believing this stuff?

You drive a car? How do you think geologists find oil? With a divining rod?

One of these is a lying hypocritical tosser. Will the real Dr. Andrew A. Snelling please stand up?

Sigfried

September 28th, 2010, 10:20 AM

I absolutely agree. And I guess we could bandy back and forth about what one scientist said against another, but it is all down to interpretation of the evidence that we have, and I have not seen evidence in the fossil record to convince me that evolution ever happened.

Indeed. The best use of science is not to say X scientist concludes Y, but to actually understand and examine what they are saying and what the results of their experiments are.

One of the problems with the Young Earth folks is they generally don't do experiments, they simply pontificate conclusions based on claimed assumptions. They claim that X or Y cannot be true but they don't actually get around to demonstrating that in any way.

On the other hand those who support evolution do a great number of experiments, testing, and data collection. They are hands on investigating the world, not sitting in an office trying to de-construct other peoples work because its inconvenient for their dogmatic faith.

Here is an example....

And just one more point, with a half life of 5,730 years, C-14 should no longer exist within ''ancient'' fossils, carbonate rocks or coal, yet small quantities of C-14 are indeed found in such samples on a worldwide scale.

This is a straw man argument. C-14 is not used to date ancient fossils. C-14 is used to date fossils up to about 60 thousand years old and no more which is pretty short in geologic terms. Beyond that the amount of radiation is too small to get an accurate decay measurement from. It is however more than enough to show that the earth is far older than the 10K years most YE folks claim it to be.

Uranium-Lead dating is used on some of the oldest samples because it has a long and stable half life. It can be used to go back up to a couple billion years and is accurate to within about two million years.

Depending on what time frame you expect and the accuracy you need you use different elements to do the dating. Most ancient fossils are not measuring their biological material but the surrounding sediments to date the materials.

Distrust anyone telling you that the limits of C-14 means that the measurements of ancient fossils cannot be correct. They are lying to you because C-14 is not used to measure ancient fossils.

This also includes diamonds. Measurable levels of C-14 are found in every case for both coal and diamond samples. This evidence alone proves that there is a limited age for the earth. The carbon-14 findings strongly support a recent supernatural creation.

The problem is that the leaves found were so incredibly low that they could easily be trace elements due to the process of the experimentation and contamination of the equipment used. Other scientists repeated the experiments you are mentioning, got much the same result, and they determined that the levels detected were too low to be considered accurate measurements of the actual content. The process for burning diamonds especially requires such extreme temperatures that the process leads to some expected contamination. The levels reported both in the original and subsequent experiments is insufficient to produce what would normally be considered a reliable result for carbon dating and is one of the reasons the range of carbon dating is limited to a relatively short period of geologic time.

And I would like to add that there are many scientists out there, who are also Christians who not only believe in a young earth but have the qualifications and knowledge to back up their claims.

Not really many no. They are in fact a tiny minority and many don't have quite the qualifications they claim. They also fail to get any of their work published in journals reviewed by independent scientists because their work is generally poor and their conclusions unfounded.

Good science persuades other scientists. The YE folks have utterly failed to do that for quite some time because their methods are weak and they quickly jump to unfounded conclusions.

Mazz

September 29th, 2010, 12:33 AM

Sigfried:
Uranium-Lead dating is used on some of the oldest samples because it has a long and stable half life. It can be used to go back up to a couple billion years and is accurate to within about two million years.

Given that uranium changes into lead over time, by alpha decay, they calculate the age by making three assumptions.

1. That all the lead came from uranium - no lead being in the original rock. Or they have to assume a certain percentage of lead.
2, That no lead has been introduced or removed from the rock in the supposed millions of years that it has been there. How do they know this?
3. That the half-life of uranium has remained constant while the rock has been in place.

Scientists measuring the diffusion rate of helium produced in such alpha decay have shown that it is highly likely that the half-life of uranium has NOT been constant.

And while we are talking about decay, this seems to be part of life, not only on the earth but in the Universe. This does not go well for evolution which appears to go against the second law of thermodynamics.
While evolution proposes that there is continual addition of information in the DNA of life to bring about the variety of life we see today from the very early supposed beginnings of life in the supposed hundreds of millions of years ago. No one knows what happened hundreds of millions of years ago. No one was there to test it to compare with experimentation today. And no experiment today can show that evolution ever happened.

Distrust anyone telling you that the limits of C-14 means that the measurements of ancient fossils cannot be correct. They are lying to you because C-14 is not used to measure ancient fossils.

If the half life of C-14 is so short how come there is still some present in rocks and fossils that are supposedly MILLIONS of years old. Does this not suggest that the rocks aren't as old as they are saying?

Not really many no. They are in fact a tiny minority and many don't have quite the qualifications they claim. They also fail to get any of their work published in journals reviewed by independent scientists because their work is generally poor and their conclusions unfounded.

Creation scientists get little support from publishers that are biased towards evolution. It is pure prejudice. If they don't accept it, it is because they don't believe it.

One of the problems with the Young Earth folks is they generally don't do experiments, they simply pontificate conclusions based on claimed assumptions. They claim that X or Y cannot be true but they don't actually get around to demonstrating that in any way.

I have watched many Creationist programmes on the Christian channels here, and they do explain and demonstrate why they believe in a young earth. It seems pretty convincing to me. And tell me, what experiments are carried out WITHOUT any assumptions to prove the age of the earth? No one knows how it was at the beginning of this Universe let alone the earth. The only source that tells us what happened at the beginning is in the Bible, and of course those who don't believe in the Genesis account let alone in God will dismiss that out of hand. I believe it.

For scientists to say that in the beginning there was nothing.....no space, no time, no matter (I'v heard this with my own ears from secular scientific programmes) then suddenly there was this Big Bang!..... Honestly, does that sound scientific to you? Does it sound sense? There was NOTHING.....so how come SOMETHING exploded to produce the Universe we have today? The mind boggles! :coolsmiley:

And then they say that life just suddenly appeared on the earth! Life does not come from non-life.
Then we come to evolution.....which is just as unbelievable. The fossil record was Darwin's one main problem when he wrote the 'Origin of the Species' and it still is. And there are suggestions that he wasn't even ready to publish his work in 1859 because he hadn't worked out the driving mechanism behind evolution. He settled on natural selection, but we can see even today that there is no ''driving mechanism'' for evolution. Most people assume today that natural selection is an integral and necessary part of the theory of evolution. It is not. Natural selection is real and observable. it is the necessary process whereby organisms adapt to their environments. But natural selection can only select from what is ALREADY THERE within the DNA. It can never produce new information within the DNA, it can never be a process whereby new genetic information is spontaneously produced - which is what would be necessary to evolve from molecules to man.

The theory of evolution is just that.....a theory.... and it is a theory in crisis, because today we should have more answers to how it supposedly works, and there are more questions instead. Thing is, those questions have no answers.....at least, not the ones that evolutionists want to hear.

manc

September 29th, 2010, 10:27 AM

Evolution scientists do not say life suddenly appeared on earth. It took billions of years, or millions at least. Methane, hydrogen ammonia and water reacted to form amino acids, the building blocks of life. Its also likely that amino acids landed on comets and asteroids. In fact a lot of our water came from comets also.

Anyway, once you have amino acids, its a question of building complexity gradually. A necessary step is replicating molecules. Hot springs probably played a role in providing energy for various reactions.

Biochemistry produces complex chemicals. It's not just 'chance'. The first replicating chemical could have been relatively simple, a strand of six DNA nucleotides can self - replicate, yet is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry.

The first cells would have been much simpler than any cells found today.

The oldest simple fossils, assuming they actually are fossil microbes, are about 3.5 billion years old, about a billion years after the earth formed. A billion years later simple life was widespread.

Various interesting theories of how life formed are being explored.

chadn737

September 29th, 2010, 10:53 AM

Evolution scientists do not say life suddenly appeared on earth. It took billions of years, or millions at least. Methane, hydrogen ammonia and water reacted to form amino acids, the building blocks of life. Its also likely that amino acids landed on comets and asteroids. In fact a lot of our water came from comets also.

Anyway, once you have amino acids, its a question of building complexity gradually. A necessary step is replicating molecules. Hot springs probably played a role in providing energy for various reactions.

Biochemistry produces complex chemicals. It's not just 'chance'. The first replicating chemical could have been relatively simple, a strand of six DNA nucleotides can self - replicate, yet is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry.

The first cells would have been much simpler than any cells found today.

The oldest simple fossils, assuming they actually are fossil microbes, are about 3.5 billion years old, about a billion years after the earth formed. A billion years later simple life was widespread.

Various interesting theories of how life formed are being explored.

This is not "evolutionary theory." Acceptance of evolutionary theory is not predicated on an assumption of abiogenesis. Evolution is decent with modification. Life could be created by God and still evolve as long as there is a mechanism for inheritance, a mechanism for change, a mechanism for selection.

I do not discount the possibility of abiogenesis, but am highly skeptical of its plausibility.

This is important to note, because most creationists lump evolution in along with abiogenesis assuming that you cannot have one without the other.

Sigfried

September 29th, 2010, 11:11 AM

Sigfried:

Given that uranium changes into lead over time, by alpha decay, they calculate the age by making three assumptions.

1. That all the lead came from uranium - no lead being in the original rock. Or they have to assume a certain percentage of lead.
2, That no lead has been introduced or removed from the rock in the supposed millions of years that it has been there. How do they know this?
3. That the half-life of uranium has remained constant while the rock has been in place.

Where do you get this stuff from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other minerals such as monazite, titanite, and baddeleyite. Zircon incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

Such challenges were indeed valid but were recognized and worked out by Scientists because they are interested in the truth. Using reasoning, logic and experimentation they attempt to control for contaminants (led that got there some other way) etc.

They have also done many experiments on trying to alter the half life of uranium and other substances used in dating and so far have found negligible ability to do so, even using forces that rival those of the sun.

For every "ya but..." the creationist lit has to offer, science was way ahead of them posing the same challenges and asking the same questions. And instead of simply stopping there they tried to work out solutions and answer to those questions and generally they succeed at doing so.

These assumptions are not simply assumed and then discarded, they are instead made as hypothesis and then tested to see how accurate they are. Their ideas are challenged by other scientists who would like nothing better than to prove them wrong but in the end they could not so they accepted the findings that were corroborated by multiple independent labs.

Scientists measuring the diffusion rate of helium produced in such alpha decay have shown that it is highly likely that the half-life of uranium has NOT been constant.

The problem is that the RATE project was generally preformed with sloppy methodology that leads to a host of potential errors in their findings which is why they can't get published in a scientific journal. Its not bias, its just bad work.

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html

The conclusion reached by the RATE project as to the reason for the increased amount of Helium is that sometime in the past few thousand years there was a period of increased radioactivity (DeYoung, 2005, 78). A fundamental problem with this hypothesis, however, is that the amount of energy released during the accelerated decay proposed by RATE would potentially be enough to evaporate the oceans and melt the Earth's crust (Ross, 2004, 179).

The samples RATE tested were from a borehole sample retrieved in 1974 with no statement made as to the storage or collection conditions of the samples. In a statement on page 72, the report states that "[t]hey were taken from a depth of 750 meters, where the temperature was measured at a constant 96°C" (DeYoung, 2005). Was the rock sample kept at the same temperature and pressure during storage as that it would have experienced had it remained in the ground? Was there any chance of helium from any other sources contaminating the sample? In order to fully quantify the rock samples they obtained, the above two questions need to be thoroughly answered to secure the quality of the rock being sampled. However, neither of these questions were answered, and the wording of the paragraph indicates that the samples that were sent to the laboratory were excavated thirty years previous and not fresh.

Even with an obvious lack of sample documentation there is other substantial criticism of the accuracy of the findings of the RATE project. One major critique was written by Kevin Henke, Ph.D (Henke, 2005). His criticisms range from using faulty standard deviation for error factors to incorrectly identifying rock samples that could lead to very serious errors in measurements to using equations that yield inconsistent dates as examples of how traditional radioisotope dating is flawed. For example, the project's final results were an age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years; the standard deviation should have been 6,000 ± 4,600 years (Henke, 2005). There are also questions about the purity of some of the rock samples that were claimed to be of high purity: in an appendix to the final report, the lead scientist expressed some confusion as to the behavior of a rock sample which can only be explained as impurities in the sample (Henke, 2005).

Another major problem is that the the diffusion measurements were taken while the samples were in a vacuum. Gases readily try to expand and fill all available space, and a vacuum acts just as one imagines: it "pulls" the gas out of the rock much faster than it would ordinarily move when confined in cubic miles of rock. The diffusion values that were measured (the amount of gas that came out of the rock in a certain period of time at certain temperatures) were used as equivalent values to the natural environment (Henke, 2005).

Another serious procedural error is that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.

Scientists usually look at the daughter product of the decay in order to determine the approximate age of a rock or mineral. The reasoning for this is that the helium release by alpha decay can too easily escape the surrounding rock. In the case of 238Uranium, the daughter product is 234Thorium. Through many decay sequences, it eventually decays to become 206Lead. Using the slope of an isochron graph, an approximate age can be calculated for the sample.

An isochron graph uses the present ratio of, in this case, 206Lead to naturally-occurring 204Lead graphically plotted against the present ratio of 238Uranium to 204Lead to determine the age. In this example, the mineral started out with a certain ratio of 206Lead to 204Lead and a certain ratio of 238Uranium to 206Lead. Over a long period of time, the parent element will decay at a calculable rate into the daughter product. With more of the parent product existing in the rock sample, more of the daughter product will have been created; with less of the parent product existing in the rock sample, less of the daughter product will have developed. The resulting plotted points should line up near a single sloping line which is then used to calculate the age.

If there are any impurities in the dated samples, the final result will not have points on a line; the points will be scattered about with very little correlation to each other. In Figure 2, one sample has been contaminated by gaining some of the parent product, and another sample has been contaminated by losing some of the parent product. These two contamination events alter the isochron line so that no accurate conclusion can be drawn.

In alpha decay, two protons and two neutrons are released: a 4Helium atom. This atom is much smaller than Oxygen, Silicon, and other elements that form the earth's minerals, so it is easily able to slip between the mineral molecules to escape through rock. An element such as 206Lead cannot migrate very far through a mineral because it cannot fit between the bonds of other, smaller atoms. At higher temperatures, Helium will have an easier time escaping from rock, though higher pressures found deeper within the crust will slow the Helium down. The ability of Helium to migrate through rock makes it very hard to consider it a reliable dating source. It is much easier to use an element that has very little ability to migrate than one that has a great ability to move in and out of rock.

The major problem with using Helium as a measure of age is that alpha decay always releases a 4Helium nucleus. Uranium is only one of many radioactive elements that decay to a stable element through alpha decay. In the process of decaying to 206Lead, 238Uranium releases 8 4Helium nuclei (Lupton, 2005). 222Radon also decays through alpha decay to 206Lead. While 222Radon is a daughter product in the decay chain from 238Uranium to 206Lead, it is relatively abundant in Earth's crust and is constantly escaping through the crust into the atmosphere. This being the case, it is impossible to attribute all the helium in rock samples to a single decay sequence. The helium found in the rock RATE tested results from many different decay processes, so to attribute it to a single decay process is faulty.

While the RATE project can be commended for trying to use scientific methods for proving a young Earth, there are too many questions regarding its execution and too much ability for a false date to be calculated from the Helium amounts in the rock samples. Excess Helium in rocks may be a genuine mystery, but all possible explanations must be investigated before a true understanding can emerge. The RATE team has jumped the gun by preparing a radical model like accelerated decay, which would have a wide variety of serious consequences that have not been considered.

And while we are talking about decay, this seems to be part of life, not only on the earth but in the Universe. This does not go well for evolution which appears to go against the second law of thermodynamics.

It does no such thing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.

Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering and physical chemistry ramifications.

While evolution proposes that there is continual addition of information in the DNA of life to bring about the variety of life we see today from the very early supposed beginnings of life in the supposed hundreds of millions of years ago. No one knows what happened hundreds of millions of years ago. No one was there to test it to compare with experimentation today. And no experiment today can show that evolution ever happened.

Indeed, but we can piece together the evidence we have and arrive at the most likely causes and explanations. Now that we have some understanding of the rudimentary mechanics of life and a pretty deep understanding of the function of matter at the molecular level, and some understanding of the function of matter at the atomic level, we have found that all this evidence points us in the direction of an evolutionary biological process that best explains the given fossil record of life on earth.

If the half life of C-14 is so short how come there is still some present in rocks and fossils that are supposedly MILLIONS of years old. Does this not suggest that the rocks aren't as old as they are saying?

That is simply contamination. If young earth were true, then C-14 would be found in abundance in all samples of rock and material when in fact it is not. It is easy to explain its presence in exceptional cases from known levels of contamination. It is very hard to explain its absence in the majority of samples known to be older than the measurable half life of C-14.

You already hit on the bias that makes you reject the rather strong arguments, they are not 100% certain. There are indeed open questions and room for doubt and there always will be. But when you compare the evidence for the two competing notions, the evidence the earth is some billions of years old is far stronger than the evidence it is only a few thousand years old. And where there are some small flaws in the evidence for an old earth, there are far more flaws in the evidence for a young earth.

Creation scientists get little support from publishers that are biased towards evolution. It is pure prejudice. If they don't accept it, it is because they don't believe it.

Hardly true. Scientists do review the creationists work and often praise them when they are at least trying to do science. The problem is they aren't very good at it most of the time because they don't review each-others work with a goal of showing it to be false. Real scientists are often working hard to disprove their own work if at all possible. Creationists rarely question their own pre-determined conclusions.

I have watched many Creationist programmes on the Christian channels here, and they do explain and demonstrate why they believe in a young earth. It seems pretty convincing to me.

That is because they only tell you the parts that are supportive of their case.

And tell me, what experiments are carried out WITHOUT any assumptions to prove the age of the earth? No one knows how it was at the beginning of this Universe let alone the earth. The only source that tells us what happened at the beginning is in the Bible, and of course those who don't believe in the Genesis account let alone in God will dismiss that out of hand. I believe it.

All of them. Scientists simply want to know the true answer, they don't care if its 10 years or 10 billion years so long as the evidence backs it up. There is no set sacred age of the earth for scientists. The most accepted dates have changed as new techniques are developed that are more accurate. Different approaches lead to somewhat different dates due to the possible errors in such methodologies. If the earth were only 10K years (it varies depending on who you ask) old and there was good evidence to support that, then scientists would probably come up with dates matching that. But they don't. Its the creationists that have figured out dates based on genealogies in an ancient book from unknown authors and decided it must be true and then seek out possible support for that notion. That's not science.

For scientists to say that in the beginning there was nothing.....no space, no time, no matter (I'v heard this with my own ears from secular scientific programmes) then suddenly there was this Big Bang!..... Honestly, does that sound scientific to you? Does it sound sense? There was NOTHING.....so how come SOMETHING exploded to produce the Universe we have today? The mind boggles! :coolsmiley:

Serious scientists make no such claims. The truth is they don't know what there was prior to the big bang, they have no way they could possible measure it. The actual moments of the big bang itself remain elusive and their mathematical models (which is what most of that is based on) only work up to a certain point in time and before that they can't really describe what the universe might have been like. To say there was nothing at all is just a simplification of the idea.

There are models in string theory that say this universe that we observe is the product of a collision of higher dimensional branes or membranes that when they come into contact spawn lower dimensional disturbances which our physical universe is one of. Thats all based on various mathematical models as well, I don't pretend to understand them and they don't pretend to know it to be truth, its just what their math tells them is possible if the string theory is true (which is not universally accepted by any means).

You want to try and pin scientists into hard answers for nearly impossible questions but it doesn't work that way. They are simply seeking using reason and experimentation to build a body of knowledge that is unbiased by personal perspective or emotional irrationality. They seek objective information.

You would want me to believe that the world was created by an infinite but intangible ghost how lights bushes on fire and wars with rebellious angels and who has three parts but is one part and who is both present in space but outside of space and who is the greatest and the smallest and whatever else you claim to interpret from a really old book. Science has made the world a more livable place and given us great knowledge and power. Religion has brought us a lot of arguments and very little actual knowledge about our world. Religion has inspired great art and effort in men, but that is true of all religions, not just yours.

And then they say that life just suddenly appeared on the earth! Life does not come from non-life.

Why? We know that life is made of the same material as non living objects. Its like saying lego cars can't come from lego pieces. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible.

But natural selection can only select from what is ALREADY THERE within the DNA.

Multiple posters have already demonstrated to you that this is demonstrably false and that new traits are introduced through changes to the genetic code that were not present in the ancestors of the subject and that those traits can be passed to offspring.

It can never produce new information within the DNA, it can never be a process whereby new genetic information is spontaneously produced - which is what would be necessary to evolve from molecules to man.

You are simply wrong in this.

manc

September 29th, 2010, 11:14 AM

This is not "evolutionary theory." Acceptance of evolutionary theory is not predicated on an assumption of abiogenesis.

What? First, I've heard of it. You are gonna have to come up with the goods here, and support.

Personally I say yeah, right.

As far as I am concerned, abiogenesis is part of evolution, and evolution is part of abiogenesis. Prove me wrong.

Sigfried

September 29th, 2010, 11:26 AM

I do not discount the possibility of abiogenesis, but am highly skeptical of its plausibility.

This is important to note, because most creationists lump evolution in along with abiogenesis assuming that you cannot have one without the other.

Thanks Chadn. I just want to make it clear to Mazz that Chadn737 is a Christian and a Scientist and a person clearly both able to maintain faith and to objectively look at the evidence in the world around us.

abiogenesis, the organization of life from non-life is certainly in the realm of the possible, it is simply deeply improbably on a finite scale. Over a grand scale of time and circumstance it becomes more probable but still remains in the realm of no kind of virtual guarantee.

We know only that such an event must have taken place because the earth had no life and then had life so some event must have organized life.

To assume that it is an intelligence of some kind is not entirely unreasonable. We know that an intelligence could indeed create a design of some kind that would be life and that from certain perspectives the mechanisms of life are ingenious.

What we can't do is say we have any proof of such intelligence in the actual physical evidence itself. Were life to contain some element that is found no where else, or if it followed some physical law that no other thing followed, then life's impossibility would demand some kind of intervention. But we don't have that, we only have improbability of unintended creation and the improbability of infinite non-physical intelligences or aliens or what have you.

What we can say is that a literal biblical account of the sort you pro port is so contrary to the available evidence as to be impossible. That does not mean God is a lie, it only means that is possible. It is also quite possible that it was not written with he intent you ascribe to it, or that its authors misunderstood God's vision, or that God described creation in a simplistic way so ancient people could comprehend the general notion of creation.

As far as I am concerned, abiogenesis is part of evolution, and evolution is part of abiogenesis. Prove me wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1]

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[223] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[224] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[225][226] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[227] and the assembly of simple cells.[228]

Evolution is change and to have change you must assume you have the thing that is changing. Evolution is is only addressing how life forms become other life forms, it does not address how non life became life.

Science has no solid theory on how abiogenesis happened and thus it is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

chadn737

September 29th, 2010, 11:30 AM

What? First, I've heard of it. You are gonna have to come up with the goods here, and support.

Personally I say yeah, right.

As far as I am concerned, abiogenesis is part of evolution, and evolution is part of abiogenesis. Prove me wrong.

Consider the following.

Assume God does create life and then does nothing else. There is no abiogenesis.

This life is DNA based. It undergoes mutation. It is also subject to processes such as Natural Selection and Genetic Drift.

Would that life still be evolving?

When you give me you're answer, I'll continue.

manc

September 29th, 2010, 11:43 AM

Yebbut nobut.....

Ok, you got me there.

Why are you bringing god into this? What business does god have in this?

Ok, yeah, IF there was a god and he created the most simple life and said 'right you little microbe, off you go' yeah, it would evolve without any more interference from god.

And?

What has this got to do with science?

Why couldnt god have thought ' well, I cant be arsed forming life, its kinda cheating, I reckon if I leave them chemicals long enough some simple replication or metabolism should kick off eventually'. 'Oh hang on, I'm talking to myself again, sod this, what can I get done in the next 6 days?'

chadn737

September 29th, 2010, 11:56 AM

Yebbut nobut.....

Ok, you got me there.

Why are you bringing god into this? What business does god have in this?

Ok, yeah, IF there was a god and he created the most simple life and said 'right you little microbe, off you go' yeah, it would evolve without any more interference from god.

And?

What has this got to do with science?

Why couldnt god have thought ' well, I cant be arsed forming life, its kinda cheating, I reckon if I leave them chemicals long enough some simple replication or metabolism should kick off eventually'. 'Oh hang on, I'm talking to myself again, sod this, what can I get done in the next 6 days?'

Then you see my point. The origin of life is a distinct issue from whether or not life evolves. That's all I really care about, that we can agree on this point of "context."

I bring up God for two reasons.

1) You not only brought up the issue of abiogenesis, but insisted that one cannot separate Evolution from abiogenesis.

2) My own personal beliefs, the personal beliefs of many prominent scientists (including experts in evolutionary biology) both accept evolution and believe in God. Speaking from experience from my own life where I started as a hard core young earth creationist and transitioned to where I am now today, a staunch proponent of evolutionary theory (note that I'm even open to the possibility of abiogenesis) I know that oftentimes the largest barrier to someone of that background is that evolution MUST assume that God does not exist or have any role in the existence of life. But that is not the case and once that barrier can be breached, most theists are more open to evolution. That is why I have such an issue with individuals who insist on tying evolution to their own atheistic beliefs. What they fail to realize is that in assaulting theism in any form alongside their attempts to prove evolution, you actually close off a lot of minds to evolution. Of course this leads me to believe that popularizers like Richard Dawkins are really not interested in spreading scientific literacy in things like evolution, but only in evangelizing their own personal beliefs and philosophies in the guise of promoting science.

Sigfried

September 29th, 2010, 01:09 PM

That is why I have such an issue with individuals who insist on tying evolution to their own atheistic beliefs. What they fail to realize is that in assaulting theism in any form alongside their attempts to prove evolution, you actually close off a lot of minds to evolution. Of course this leads me to believe that popularizers like Richard Dawkins are really not interested in spreading scientific literacy in things like evolution, but only in evangelizing their own personal beliefs and philosophies in the guise of promoting science.

Do we often actually do that?

It feels to me like Theists make it a personal mission to attack evolution because they feel it is in contradiction to what they know to be true and thus must be false and its only a matter of finding out why and convincing others. While evolution in no way disproves God, it does disagree with the image of God that many people hold and their notion of how reality operates and the nature of the sacredness of human beings.

I agree with you and many other well educated and thoughtful Christians that the general nature of God and even the bible itself is in no way directly challenged by evolution or even science. If you can handle the notion that the bible is not a manual of physical truth and is instead a manual of spiritual/moral truth coupled with some measure of legendary story telling, then its perfectly compatible with just about anything that science can possibly ever have to say about anything and you can join the hunt for objective truth about the physical world while pursuing objective or subjective truth about the spiritual world.

God could be not only the architect of life but of the physical word that brought life into being. That doesn't mean it had to actually take place in 6 earth days or to have happened with no more complexity or subtlety than is described in genesis.

I think the problem is that many people can not psychologically handle doubt. They require a feeling of absolute certainty and any hint of "we don't know" is inherently unsatisfying to them and raises the specter of the fear of the unknown, one of mankind's most powerful fears. Its much easier to simply see the words in Genisis and say "then that is exactly what happened" because then there is no doubt, no questions, no uncertainty. Science on the other hand is chock full of uncertainty and if it casts any doubt on the certainty of a bible story then its a threat that must be attacked.

What gets me about creationists is how dishonest many of them seem to be. Not folks debating here, but those who put out the literature they read. It's hard for me to accept that it is all well intentioned and honest. It often seems quite willfully misinformed. I even found evidence that a prominent creationist author is a blatant fraud and publishes contradictory information in journals at the same time as writing creationist pieces. That does fire me up and make me want to fight against misinformation.

Your story jives with what I see as the reality. The barrier between creationism and similar notions of dogma that fly in the face of science is mostly just about a willingness to examine the facts and accept the notion that what you once thought could be wrong.

I see theism vs atheism as partly a war between desire and reason. Desire tells me it would be wonderful if the world had a purpose and if our spirits were eternal and if there was magic and imitable justice and pure good and evil and so on. Its all very thrilling and exciting to imagine human values in command of all creation.

Reason sees a world that is not ordered according to human desires or notions of justice or good and evil and where when life ends it simply ends to make room for further variations because that is the only way it can be and have come to be what it is. Reason tells me there are no heroic gods or evil demons at work, only physical laws and people's reason and emotion.

We all find our ways of dealing with these conflicting dualities. Those of strong faith use apologetics to reconstruct a reality that conforms to reason but telling stories of the invisible and unknowable. I on the other hand create worlds of deliberate fantasy where I can imagine my desire for immortality and absolute good and evil are real to indulge my emotional desires.

But there are hard limits to reason and knowledge and there is nothing in my power to say that there is no God and that souls do not exist independently, nor is there any way for another persons reason or knowledge to prove their are. So long as one does not take ones construction of the intangible and then use it to dictate what the tangible should be, religion and science are not in any respect enemies. They are instead two important sides to the nature of the Human experience.

chadn737

September 29th, 2010, 02:27 PM

It feels to me like Theists make it a personal mission to attack evolution because they feel it is in contradiction to what they know to be true and thus must be false and its only a matter of finding out why and convincing others. While evolution in no way disproves God, it does disagree with the image of God that many people hold and their notion of how reality operates and the nature of the sacredness of human beings.

I don't disagree with that. Many theists do act in such a way.

But I think it does go both ways. And I think one problem is that few on either side are willing to consider the debate from the other side.

What I see time and again is that when the theist makes an assault on evolution, atheists tend to reply in kind with assaults on religion along with defenses of evolution. The reaction from the theist is oftentimes then to harden themselves against the evidence because the evidence is being presented alongside direct assaults on the religion.

I can tell you from my own experience, I was able to accept evolution not because of the arguments of atheist defenders, but because of the writings of Christian defenders, in particular the work of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, who is a professor of Biology at Brown University and a professing Roman Catholic. In particular his book "Finding Darwin's God" is what first introduced me to the idea that one can believe in both God and Evolution and how.

The important part of this though, was that Dr. Miller, being a believer started with the assumption that there is a God and at no point was hostile to my beliefs. By the time individuals like Dr. Francis Collins started in, I already accepted evolution, but if you want know who is likely to have a greater influence and open the minds of more Christians, then it will be individuals like Dr. Miller and Dr. Collins who are addressing creationism and ID, without the inherent hostility towards religion as expressed by people like Richard Dawkins.

Honestly, its hard to convince you're opponent when you condescend and mock. I admit that I can take a mocking tone, some of my later posts in reply to Mazz already do so. But I try to fight this urge because I know exactly the position that Mazz is coming from because that was once me.

Sigfried

September 29th, 2010, 03:27 PM

What I see time and again is that when the theist makes an assault on evolution, atheists tend to reply in kind with assaults on religion along with defenses of evolution. The reaction from the theist is oftentimes then to harden themselves against the evidence because the evidence is being presented alongside direct assaults on the religion.

Its true, although to be honest the primary piece of evidence they bring that "disproves" evolution is.. "the bible says it didn't happen that way" and the proper rebuttal from an Atheist standpoint is "the bible isn't a book of science"

I think it would indeed be wiser to approach the topic without even mentioning religion if possible (if you are an atheist) and just focus on the facts as much as possible. It's not easy and yes, condescension creeps in, and honestly thats because you start to feel that way after a while.

I can tell you from my own experience, I was able to accept evolution not because of the arguments of atheist defenders, but because of the writings of Christian defenders, in particular the work of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, who is a professor of Biology at Brown University and a professing Roman Catholic. In particular his book "Finding Darwin's God" is what first introduced me to the idea that one can believe in both God and Evolution and how.

I've no doubts. A message is always better received from people with a similar world view or some other thing you can identify with. The people most persuasive are those we most identify with.

I'm always delighted when you show up in the evolution threads because you can represent the argument from a far more sympathetic perspective. (and to be honest a far more knowledgeable one than mine) I know that for myself, I'm rarely persuaded while in the heat of an argument, but later on reflection I may remember things and find them persuasive. I can only hope that on occasion my thoughts can echo like that and folks may come around on a point or two, or at least see how an opposing viewpoint is more than just nonsense.

The important part of this though, was that Dr. Miller, being a believer started with the assumption that there is a God and at no point was hostile to my beliefs.

I never really want to be hostile to Theists. I like to think I understand where they are coming from on some level. I even admire a great many things about religious groups and I value the idea of Faith as much as I rally against notions of Dogma.

Honestly, its hard to convince you're opponent when you condescend and mock.

I doubt I can convince Mazz of anything other than that I am honest in my arguments and that I'm not an idiot. My hope is I can at most inspire her to read on the subject outside the realm of creationist sites.

My basic advice: Start with the question/challenge, go looking for the answer.

Mazz

September 30th, 2010, 02:04 AM

Goodness, I'v been away too long!

Sigfried:
I agree with you and many other well educated and thoughtful Christians that the general nature of God and even the bible itself is in no way directly challenged by evolution or even science. If you can handle the notion that the bible is not a manual of physical truth and is instead a manual of spiritual/moral truth coupled with some measure of legendary story telling, then its perfectly compatible with just about anything that science can possibly ever have to say about anything and you can join the hunt for objective truth about the physical world while pursuing objective or subjective truth about the spiritual world.

I am an educated and thoughtful Christian who believes that the Bible is basically a historical record. Right from Genesis 1. It is also a Book containing prophecy, poetry, symbolism, spiritual and moral teachings and helps us to know the nature and purposes of God and the work and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to bring salvation to fallen mankind.
Evolution DOES challenge the very foundation of Gods Word and particularly the creation. Genesis 1 clearly states, word by word and verse by verse (though there were no verses when it was written) that God created everything in 6 DAYS. Now I could go into the meaning of the Hebrew word DAY and the fact that it was also accompanied by not only ordinate numbers but also the phrase ''evening and morning'' which leaves not doubt as to how long creation took, but the very idea that there was millions of years of evolution, suffering, death and disease before Adam sinned changes completely the very nature of sin, death and therefore the way of salvation.
The Bible clearly tells us that death came through sin. Now the theistic evolutionist will say it was only spiritual death.....no......death came to Adam physically aswell....eventually. He began to die the day he sinned. He died spiritually....was separated from a relationship with God.... that same day. That is why we are all born in sin, dead to God, and that is why we need a Saviour to regain what we lost.....ETERNAL LIFE....no death whatsoever. Spiritual or physical.

Exodus 20 v 11 also states quite clearly that ''in 6 DAYS God created the heavens and the earth,'' so scripture authenticates scripture. And, BTW that is why we have a 6 day week, with 1 day of rest, for ''in 6 DAYS God created the heaven and earth, and rested on the 7th''. (And no He wasn't tired) that was HIs plan and purpose for mankind.

Manc: And life had to have a beginning.....one day....life appeared. Non-life does not 'evolve' into life, or in any way can gradually appear. It was either put onto this earth by God, the way He said it was, or it would never have existed at all.
And scientists cannot tell you how it came, only how they THINK it began.

Chad737:
Honestly, its hard to convince you're opponent when you condescend and mock. I admit that I can take a mocking tone, some of my later posts in reply to Mazz already do so. But I try to fight this urge because I know exactly the position that Mazz is coming from because that was once me.

I usually won't answer threads when they start to be like that. But I'm glad you appreciate where I am coming from. It is funny, that you have gone the opposite way to me. I believed in evolution for quite a few years when I had become a Christian, but it always bothered me that Genesis 1 seemed to oppose the theory. I could not reconcile Gods record of creation with what evolutionary theory taught. It was, in fact, Creationist ministries and scientists who were Christians who helped me to see the great gaps and holes in the theory,and could explain to me how the Bible was true, even in Genesis. I could see the science in Genesis, right from when God said ''Let there be light''. At first I thought that this must be the Big Bang, but then found that this too was only a theory which scientists could not explain without sounding ridiculous.
I do find though, that atheists do become condescending and quite rude in their dealings with creationists and especially YEC's, where as I have not personally attacked anyone's intelligence but only the theory which they hold to be absolute fact. And this is just not the case, and I seek to show them this.

Sigfried: #113:
Scientists simply want to know the true answer, they don't care if its 10 years or 10 billion years so long as the evidence backs it up.

But what scientists? According to evolutionists it is only the evolutionist scientists that are qualified and honest enough to want to know the truth. This is just not so.
There has been much dishonesty within the scientific camps. And I find that their refusal to even think that there may be a God that created it all creates a bias that does not allow them to even want to find the truth, but to find what proves their own theories. With a lot of atheistic scientists there is a built in prejudice against the very idea of a God.....Richard Dawkins is the leading proponent.

To find that the earth is indeed created only recently by a Power beyond man's would be for them to accept that there is indeed a God who they are accountable to. This to most atheists is anathema.

Chadn737:
What they fail to realize is that in assaulting theism in any form alongside their attempts to prove evolution, you actually close off a lot of minds to evolution. Of course this leads me to believe that popularizers like Richard Dawkins are really not interested in spreading scientific literacy in things like evolution, but only in evangelizing their own personal beliefs and philosophies in the guise of promoting science.

I agree. Their attitude does not help matters. I'm glad that you agree with my thoughts on Richard Dawkins. He just seems to be in a personal war against God and everything Christian.

Sigfried:
It feels to me like Theists make it a personal mission to attack evolution because they feel it is in contradiction to what they know to be true and thus must be false and its only a matter of finding out why and convincing others. While evolution in no way disproves God, it does disagree with the image of God that many people hold and their notion of how reality operates and the nature of the sacredness of human beings.

It is not my personal mission to attack evolution. I have simply found that evolution has no evidence for it's millions of years of change, which should show millions.....no billions.... of transitional forms all throughout the fossil record. This is just not found. And this is what I want to show to those who are evolutionists.
But there are many other reasons why evolution can't be fact without even consulting the Bible about special creation.
If anyone believes the Word of God....being the very words that God had written down by writers of many different ages who were moved to do so by His Holy Spirit, then we have to take them seriously. We cannot know the Truth unless we read the Word of Truth the way God intended it to be read. And it can only be understood by those who possess the Spirit of God. Born-again believers.

And your last line, I absolutely agree with. So it changes how some Christians understand Gods nature and His plan for mankind.....that includes salvation which is the central purpose for God through Jesus Christ.

I doubt I can convince Mazz of anything other than that I am honest in my arguments and that I'm not an idiot. My hope is I can at most inspire her to read on the subject outside the realm of creationist sites.

You don't need to inspire me, I have always been interested in science, from my earliest years. Astronomy was my favourite, I was also interested in palaeontology and the idea of dinosaurs. Later it was physics and how the Universe worked. I'v read much non-creationist literature over the years, including Stephen Hawkins and Paul Davies among many. I am by no means only reading Creationist literature. I just love science. But since becoming a Christian I have also studied the Bible, and I have found that mindless evolution, with mutations....most of which are hemful....cannot be the way God created. He did not create by evolution with disease, suffering and death included in the process. Genesis 1 would be meaningless if that were true. And why would God want to confuse His people by having an account written that has no resemblance to what supposedly happened according to the theory of evolution?

I also watch a lot of National Geographic programmes, but have been told by evolutionists, that scientists on there are'nt real scientists! So who is the real scientist? Will he stand up please? :coolsmiley:

Sigfried

September 30th, 2010, 07:57 AM

I am an educated and thoughtful Christian who believes that the Bible is basically a historical record. Right from Genesis 1. It is also a Book containing prophecy, poetry, symbolism, spiritual and moral teachings and helps us to know the nature and purposes of God and the work and Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to bring salvation to fallen mankind.

you believe the bible is a historical record right from Genesis but I don't think there are any good reasons to think that is the case. Even if you believe in God and that he inspired the bible, he was inspiring people that lived thousands of years ago and had pretty much no understanding of how the physical universe worked. They knew what a day was, but not a light year. They could not imagine a million or a billion years, they had no way to even represent such numbers. If God mentioned deoxyribonucleic acid it would have been like speaking in tongues to them. If god had to describe the act of creation he would have had to use metaphor for them to even have the vaguest notion of how it happened and a vague notion is the best that could be managed.

It would make perfect sense that the stories of god's grandeur were greatly simplified for a people that were not equipped to understand anything of great detail. Saying that God must be exactly as is written in the bible is to say that God must be as unsophisticated and simple as peoples world knowledge some 3 thousand years ago. Does it really make sense to put that limitation on God's works?

Now I could go into the meaning of the Hebrew word DAY and the fact that it was also accompanied by not only ordinate numbers but also the phrase ''evening and morning'' which leaves not doubt as to how long creation took, but the very idea that there was millions of years of evolution, suffering, death and disease before Adam sinned changes completely the very nature of sin, death and therefore the way of salvation.

How does it change the meaning of sin exactly? Sin, is simply disobedience to god's will. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates the origins of man's knowledge and power leading to corruption and evil. It is essentially a story about coming of age and loosing innocence. It explains how our sexual desire and greed can lead to great evils which is something all of us deal with as we grow up and learn the ways of adulthood. It is a story that helps explain our natures, and Sin is part of that nature as is knowledge of good and evil. Saying that the story is allegorical in no way changes its actual moral and spiritual meaning.

You really think that the fate of all man kind was determined by a talking snake and a piece of fruit? That is how an infinite being decides the fate of his whole creation? That seems absurd to me. What makes far more sense is an infinite being might use a simple story to teach complex ideas to a simple people.

The Bible clearly tells us that death came through sin. Now the theistic evolutionist will say it was only spiritual death.....no......death came to Adam physically aswell....eventually. He began to die the day he sinned. He died spiritually....was separated from a relationship with God.... that same day. That is why we are all born in sin, dead to God, and that is why we need a Saviour to regain what we lost.....ETERNAL LIFE....no death whatsoever. Spiritual or physical.

None of that changes if you simply see Adam as representative of mankind rather than an actual person. We every day choose to defy the will of God. Each of us has the same free will that Adam had in the story and each of us will choose of our own will to sin in some way. To think that Adam is alone responsible for sin is to deny the sin we choose to engage in of our own free will.

Death is simply a necessity. Without death we could only have a very small number of people ever to live upon the earth. There would be no children, no generations, and likely no ambition. Death is required for life. The story is simply a way to explain why death is necessary to a people that would never understand that the world itself has limitations in size and resource for they knew only the horizon in those days and its limit could not be measured.

Exodus 20 v 11 also states quite clearly that ''in 6 DAYS God created the heavens and the earth,'' so scripture authenticates scripture. And, BTW that is why we have a 6 day week, with 1 day of rest, for ''in 6 DAYS God created the heaven and earth, and rested on the 7th''. (And no He wasn't tired) that was HIs plan and purpose for mankind.

It was allegedly written by the same author, Moses. That two chapters agree with one another would not be a shocker. It is how they chose to describe creation. Any measure of time that corresponds with what we know today would be incomprehensible to Moses. 7 is a holy number throught the bible so it makes sense that they would choose 7 days. They use the number 7 all over the place like 7 of every holy animal and 7 times 7 times 7 etc... Whenever a number is called for, 7 is often chosen.

I do find though, that atheists do become condescending and quite rude in their dealings with creationists and especially YEC's, where as I have not personally attacked anyone's intelligence but only the theory which they hold to be absolute fact. And this is just not the case, and I seek to show them this.

Here you contradict yourself. You say evolutionists hold evolution to be absolute fact, yet later you say you doubt them because they express doubts about the theory. You seem to portray science however it is convenient for your argument.

But what scientists? According to evolutionists it is only the evolutionist scientists that are qualified and honest enough to want to know the truth. This is just not so.

You are wrong. There is not "creationists not allowed" sign up at scientific institutions, its just that you must prove your case if you wish to make one and you have to do it using the methods of science. If you don't use proper methods then you don't get published. Works of science by atheists are rejected all the time for being sloppy and unfounded. There are many prominent scientists who are theists of one kind or another and are fully respected. It just so happens that a great many of the creationist crowd are not disciplined or thorough in their work and they consistently fail to respond to criticism and instead just repeat the same things over and over.

I know you are not a scientist but you haven't responded to any of my evidence in this thread discrediting your sources or their work, and that is typical of creationist advocates. They simply choose to ignore anything that contradicts them rather than defend their positions and you can't get away with that in the scientific community.

There has been much dishonesty within the scientific camps. And I find that their refusal to even think that there may be a God that created it all creates a bias that does not allow them to even want to find the truth, but to find what proves their own theories. With a lot of atheistic scientists there is a built in prejudice against the very idea of a God.....Richard Dawkins is the leading proponent.

Some scientists are crusaders for Atheism and some are crusaders for Christianity but most of them simply don't care. Dawkins offers a substantial prize to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers. Many have tried, none have succeeded. He was willing to grant the possibility, he only asked that it be verified. Dawkins books on religion are not scientific works, they are works of philosophy and reason.

To find that the earth is indeed created only recently by a Power beyond man's would be for them to accept that there is indeed a God who they are accountable to. This to most atheists is anathema.

It is not. I would be perfectly happy to have a God to be accountable to. I am not some kind of hedonist monster. I live a life that is probably not much different than yours. By most standards I and most geeks like me are prudes. Scientists are not renown for being drug users or fornicators or the like. They are known for spending long hours working in the lab trying to discover new rules of order. Your notion of what motivates atheists is greatly distorted.

I'm an atheist because I simply don't see God at work anywhere in the world. What I see is that many people believe in various religions that promise them an answer to their fear of death and the uncertainty they feel about making moral choices. I see that depending on where you grow up you tend to believe in different gods but that they all seem to serve the same purpose. This leads me to believe that gods are fictional creations of people. I see little unique about your god compared to other gods.

I agree. Their attitude does not help matters. I'm glad that you agree with my thoughts on Richard Dawkins. He just seems to be in a personal war against God and everything Christian.

It is because he lives in a society where Christians try to tell not Christians how they must behave and what they should think based on their religious beliefs and he feels another voice should be heard. If no one told the Christians they were wrong then they would simply assume they had the right to tell us all what to do as they have many times in their history.

It is not my personal mission to attack evolution. I have simply found that evolution has no evidence for it's millions of years of change, which should show millions.....no billions.... of transitional forms all throughout the fossil record. This is just not found. And this is what I want to show to those who are evolutionists.
But there are many other reasons why evolution can't be fact without even consulting the Bible about special creation.

Every form in the fossil record is a transitional form. Evolution doesn't have end points and transition points, it is a continuum and the fossil record is like a very tiny window on a very large landscape picking little snippets here and there from what life has had to offer over the span of time.

If anyone believes the Word of God....being the very words that God had written down by writers of many different ages who were moved to do so by His Holy Spirit, then we have to take them seriously. We cannot know the Truth unless we read the Word of Truth the way God intended it to be read. And it can only be understood by those who possess the Spirit of God. Born-again believers.

No matter if something is God inspired or not, a human being has to understand it to write it down and they can only use the words their limited languages and their own personal education make available to them. These are people who lived thousands of years ago in very primitive cultures compared to what we have today. To think they can encapsulate the truth of an infinite God makes little sense.

And your last line, I absolutely agree with. So it changes how some Christians understand Gods nature and His plan for mankind.....that includes salvation which is the central purpose for God through Jesus Christ.

I don't see how. Tell me why it would need be different, why evolution changes sin or why it would remove the need for human redemption.

I also watch a lot of National Geographic programmes, but have been told by evolutionists, that scientists on there are'nt real scientists! So who is the real scientist? Will he stand up please?

Whomever told you that is an idiot or you misunderstood them. National Geographic is a scientific and preservationist organization. I imagine most of those who produce the TV show are TV show people rather than scientists but no doubt they consult with scientists on their programming. It isn't the same as reading a research paper nor is it held to the same standards as a peer reviewed work, but generally it is only summarizing the work of others and not trying to make any new claims of its own. Its entertainment but it is intended to spark an interest and respect for the natural world.

And there are no "real scientists" only people who try to follow scientific discipline and those who don't. Tesla was a great scientific genius, and he as also a madman. The knowledge is what science is, not the people that discover it.

Mazz

September 30th, 2010, 11:38 AM

Sigfried:
you believe the bible is a historical record right from Genesis but I don't think there are any good reasons to think that is the case

So you don't think that the genealogies within Genesis, or the names given in the rest of the OT are real people? What about the genealogies of Jesus Christ given in Matthews first chapter and Luke the third chapter. Luke goes right back to Adam, whereas Matthew goes forward from Abraham. Were all these people real or imaginary?

Even if you believe in God and that he inspired the bible, he was inspiring people that lived thousands of years ago and had pretty much no understanding of how the physical universe worked.

But God knew, that's why they often wrote of things they did not understand. How do you think Job knew that the earth ''hangs on nothing''?

If god had to describe the act of creation he would have had to use metaphor for them to even have the vaguest notion of how it happened and a vague notion is the best that could be managed.

No. God had them write it just as it happened....day by day....there was no need to mention DNA or anything about amino acids, it was enough that they knew that God had created everything by His Word.....He SPOKE and it came to be.

Does it really make sense to put that limitation on God's works?

Who is limiting God's work? You are the one saying that He took millions of years through the evolutionary process to create everything. I am saying what the Bible tells us, that He created everything miraculously in 6 days.

The story of Adam and Eve illustrates the origins of man's knowledge and power leading to corruption and evil.

The account of Adam and Eve in Genesis reveals that they were unashamed, innocent, and as God said that everything was ''very good'', I would take that to mean that they were perfect. It was only when Eve was tempted by the serpent (the fallen Lucifer) and then involved her husband in the disobedience, that man lost his immortal and perfect lives and death came into the world. The whole of creation was affected by the curse of sin and death. This is what the Bible teaches. At that point everything in the Universe began to die. Entropy.

It explains how our sexual desire and greed can lead to great evils which is something all of us deal with as we grow up and learn the ways of adulthood.

When the curse of sin and death entered this world, it was passed down to his children and thus to every living soul on this earth. We have inherited original sin and we are born dead spiritually to God. (Ephesians 2) That is why we need to be BORN AGAIN by the Spirit of God and enter into a new relationship with Him. We can only do that by accepting Jesus Christ His Son as our Saviour.

It is a story that helps explain our natures, and Sin is part of that nature as is knowledge of good and evil.

We are born with a sinful nature.

Saying that the story is allegorical in no way changes its actual moral and spiritual meaning.

Saying that the Genesis story is allegorical, is saying that it never happened in real life. So WHY did Jesus have to come...in real life.....and die....a real death....on the cross to pay for sin that didn't really happen in the beginning? Jesus is called the Second Adam, Who would come to undo what the first Adam...a real man....did at the beginning. If Jesus died a real death physically, and overcame a real death...spiritually, by rising from the dead and overcoming death for us, then Adam died a real death physically and spiritually.
And where does the allegory end? With Abraham? Moses? David? Because all these people were the descendants of Adam and Eve.

Sigfried:
You really think that the fate of all man kind was determined by a talking snake and a piece of fruit?

It was Adam's and Eve's disobedience that brought the curse of death into the world. He was told not to eat from one particular tree because if he did he would die....doesn't that sound like a caring father telling a child not to play in the middle of the road otherwise he would get hurt? God did not make Adam and Eve sin, He didn't want them to, but they chose to do what He told them not to. That trait runs right through the generations....and if you have children you will know that.

That is how an infinite being decides the fate of his whole creation? That seems absurd to me.

I know you are not a scientist but you haven't responded to any of my evidence in this thread discrediting your sources or their work, and that is typical of creationist advocates. They simply choose to ignore anything that contradicts them rather than defend their positions and you can't get away with that in the scientific community.

If I don't respond it is because I don't know enough about certain things to respond, and I am not going to make out I do know when I don't. I leave things alone that I don't fully understand. I still have that list of creation scientists but I don't think it will make the slightest difference if I was to post the whole long list on here. There is a very real prejudice against creation scientists simply because their work goes against the theory of evolution.

Dawkins books on religion are not scientific works, they are works of philosophy and reason.

And one wonders why he can't write a science book. I heard him on the TV yesterday talking about how the eye evolved. He said it started as a blob of gunge.....or something very similar!! Very scientific. He likened it to a transparent plastic bag full of water. And it slowly evolved. I heard no scientific....or even reasonable or sensible explanation. For an eye to work, the brain has to have the corresponding ablility to process what the eye.....blob of gunge!!....sees! As I said before he makes me laugh. :grin:

He decided before the foundation of the world to send His precious Son to earth to die for fallen mankind. And Jesus was willing to come and die that we might have life and receive that eternal life that Adam lost in the beginning. That is amazing to me! The fate He wants for all His creation is that they spend eternity with HIM.

None of that changes if you simply see Adam as representative of mankind rather than an actual person.

Again I would say, that if Adam was not a real man, then why did Jesus, a real man, have to come and die to regain what the man Adam lost. If 'Adam' is just a representative of mankind, then the Second Adam would also have to be a representative of mankind and God.

To think that Adam is alone responsible for sin is to deny the sin we choose to engage in of our own free will.

Any man that God created probably would have done the same thing. That is why Jesus was sent, to be the man (Son of man and Son of God) who would obey His Father God completely and able to shed His blood to pay for our sin. He was sinless so was able to pay with His own sinless blood.

7 is a holy number throught the bible so it makes sense that they would choose 7 days. They use the number 7 all over the place like 7 of every holy animal and 7 times 7 times 7 etc... Whenever a number is called for, 7 is often chosen.

7 is Gods number. In fact this number is interwoven within the Hebrew scriptures with multiples of sevens within the text itself. It is called the Septenary design.
The Hebrew alphabet is based on a mathematical construct.

If no one told the Christians they were wrong then they would simply assume they had the right to tell us all what to do as they have many times in their history.

But that only goes to prove the point that people don't want a God that tells them how they should live, because that is all we are trying to tell people who don't know or follow Christ. So what is wrong in telling people how to live a good life? What is wrong in asking people not to do those things that hurt others?

Every form in the fossil record is a transitional form.

No they aren't. The fossils we find are fully formed creatures. We see no intermediate forms showing a gradual change from one species to another....or gradual changes in the structure of the animal.....and I mean gradual....showing the micro changes that lead to macro changes in an animal. They aren't there.

I also watch a lot of National Geographic programmes, but have been told by evolutionists, that scientists on there are'nt real scientists! So who is the real scientist? Will he stand up please?

Whomever told you that is an idiot or you misunderstood them.

Then they were an idiot.

And there are no "real scientists" only people who try to follow scientific discipline and those who don't.

I absolutely agree. And some of them do believe in creation.

Sigfried

September 30th, 2010, 12:05 PM

So you don't think that the genealogies within Genesis, or the names given in the rest of the OT are real people? What about the genealogies of Jesus Christ given in Matthews first chapter and Luke the third chapter. Luke goes right back to Adam, whereas Matthew goes forward from Abraham. Were all these people real or imaginary?

Mathew and Luke of course disagree as to what the genealogies are, both trace from Joseph to David but neither chooses the same path. Matthew goes back to Adam but he skips a lot of people mentioned in the old testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Three consecutive kings of Judah are omitted from the genealogy: Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah. The next generation, Uzziah (also called Azariah), has a Greek name Ozias very similar to that of the first omitted name, Ochozias. Some therefore suggest that the omission arose from a scribal error, homoioteleuton between these two names, after which the groups of fourteen were discovered. Others see it as “a deliberately taken opportunity,” encouraged by the similarity of names. Not only were these three kings especially wicked, violently destroyed by the will of God,[27] they were the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation.[28] Thus Matthew felt justified in omitting them, with an eye toward forming his second tesseradecad.[29]
Another omitted king is Jehoiakim, the father of Jeconiah, also known as Jehoiachin. In Greek the names are even more similar, both being sometimes called Joachim. When Matthew says, “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile,” he appears to conflate the two, because Jehoiakim, not Jeconiah, had brothers, but the exile was in the time of Jeconiah. While some see this as a mistake, others argue that the omission was once again deliberate, ensuring that the kings after David spanned exactly fourteen generations.[29]
The final tesseradecad seems to contain only thirteen generations. Since it is unlikely that Matthew simply miscounted, a number of explanations have been proposed. A name may have been counted both at the end of one tesseradecad and the beginning of the next—either David or Jeconiah. Or if Josiah’s son was intended as Jehoiakim, then Jeconiah could be counted separately after the exile.[20] Another possibility is that Mary is counted as a generation, proceeding laterally by her marriage to Joseph. Though such a reckoning is otherwise unknown, it may have seemed necessary in light of the virgin birth.[30] Some have even proposed that Matthew’s original text had one Joseph as the father of Mary, who then married another man of the same name.[31]
If only thirteen generations span the time from Jeconiah, born about 616 BC, to Jesus, born about 2 BC, as Matthew says, the average generation would be nearly fifty years—rather unlikely, though not impossible. It is generally assumed that, as Matthew has previously taken certain liberties, he continues to do so in this section, omitting several generations. Precedent for such abridged genealogies is found in the Old Testament.[32] The lack here of papponymic naming patterns, which were common throughout this period, may indicate that Matthew has telescoped this segment by collapsing such repetitions.[33]

Were they real? I don't know. I suspect many are at least based on real people even if the exact names and dates are likely somewhat inaccurate. I imagine a few are entirely legendary but only because many ancient histories seem to include legendary figures are only representative of real people.

I suspect only the most significant and famous people show up in such genealogies while unremarkable people do not.

But God knew, that's why they often wrote of things they did not understand. How do you think Job knew that the earth ''hangs on nothing''?

Hangs on nothing is quite easy to understand. It is of course an oxymoron a think cannot hang if it hangs on nothing since it defies the definition of hang. The earth in fact does not hang it moves through space by virtue of its inertia. Just a case where the bible is wrong. A better ancient analogy would be "the world is as if a stone was thrown in the heavens and never lands."

No. God had them write it just as it happened....day by day....there was no need to mention DNA or anything about amino acids, it was enough that they knew that God had created everything by His Word.....He SPOKE and it came to be.

You assert that but you have no good reason to. The ancients could not have written anything more complex than they did. It does not mean it had to happen that way, it means its the best they could have understood it.

Who is limiting God's work? You are the one saying that He took millions of years through the evolutionary process to create everything. I am saying what the Bible tells us, that He created everything miraculously in 6 days.

You are limiting him. You are limiting him to the understanding of a culture 3000 years old that had no conception of what the world we live on is or how it works in a cosmological sense. Much of the light you see in the night sky is more than a million years old, some of it more than 10 million years old in fact. The universe is vast and magnificent. To limit God to 6 earth days is ridiculous. Why is a short creation better than a long creation?

The account of Adam and Eve in Genesis reveals that they were unashamed, innocent, and as God said that everything was ''very good'', I would take that to mean that they were perfect.

If Adam was perfect, why did he disobey god? Would a perfect being do such a thing?

It was only when Eve was tempted by the serpent (the fallen Lucifer) and then involved her husband in the disobedience, that man lost his immortal and perfect lives and death came into the world.

No where in the bible does it name the serpent to be Lucifer, you and other Christians just made that up as a guess. In the story it is a snake and its smarter than other animals and god curses it to crawl for its deeds for all time (thus explaining why serpents have no legs and why we fear them). Clearly he's talking about actual snakes that talk.

No one forced Adam to eat of the fruit. He was told by god himself, in person not to do it yet he did it anyway. Either he is an utter moron and thus imperfect or he rebelled against God which is the original sin. Adam committed sin before he took a single bite. God certainly treats him as if the disobedience was the true sin, not the knowledge gained and so he curses him and the woman and the snake in various ways.

The whole of creation was affected by the curse of sin and death. This is what the Bible teaches. At that point everything in the Universe began to die. Entropy.

That is not what the bible teaches, that is what you take as its meaning. You and other Christians like to add to the story things that aren't in it. No where does it say god curses all creation. It says the ground is cursed so that it will grow thorns and that Adam will have to farm for food (presumably rather than get to just eat the fruit that is lying around). That's it.. it then goes on to talk about their kids and such. There is nothing about original sin or the whole of creation being damned in there. Go read Gen 3 before you respond, I just did.

You seem to think that if we contradict one iota of the literal story that is wrong, but you can go adding in things that aren't in there as much as you like and that is the truth of it. I find that absurd.

When the curse of sin and death entered this world, it was passed down to his children and thus to every living soul on this earth.

That is not what the story says. The story says that man was kicked out of the garden of god and so he could not eat from the tree of eternal life which apparently was the source of his longevity. He set guards up to ensure they couldn't come back and live forever.

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

It says nothing about sin, it talks about knowledge and that with the knowledge of good and evil, men can not be allowed to also have immortality. Presumably because they would then rival God since those are the traits he has.

Show me one passage in the Adam and Eve story that mentions sin.

We have inherited original sin and we are born dead spiritually to God.

No, we invented original sin to explain why the world is not a paradise.

We are born with a sinful nature.

Indeed, and so was Adam, else he would not have disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Sin is just part of our nature, not something we picked up along the way. Sin is disobedience to god and every human has it, including Adam. He did not get sin from the fruit, he got knowledge, the sin he always had.

Jesus did not claim to remove sin, only to forgive it.

Saying that the Genesis story is allegorical, is saying that it never happened in real life. So WHY did Jesus have to come...in real life.....and die....a real death....on the cross to pay for sin that didn't really happen in the beginning?

Because all men have sin and they always have had it and it pisses God off but he realizes its impossible for us not to have sin since that is how we are made so he offers a path not to cure the problem but simply to be forgiven for what is in our nature. The sin really happened, its just that it didn't come from an apple and Adam didn't give it to his descendants. We have it for the same reason the metaphorical Adam has it, its just what we are. Adam is just a means for explaining that with knowledge of right and wrong comes responsibility and a time when we can no longer live care free and without consequence. Its a story about growing up as much as it is a creation myth which is why it resonates with us.

Jesus is called the Second Adam, Who would come to undo what the first Adam...a real man....did at the beginning.

Jesus did not heal the world nor did he undo what Adam did. He simply offered forgiveness for the sin we all have, not for Adam's sinful act.

If Jesus died a real death physically, and overcame a real death...spiritually, by rising from the dead and overcoming death for us, then Adam died a real death physically and spiritually.

Well you must know I don't believe Jesus was real either right? I believe in the idea, the notion of Jesus and even that there may have been someone by that name, but as for the mythical figure being real, no I don't believe in it any more than any other magical legend.

I do think that sin is a real notion and that forgiveness is an essential part of coping with it and so the metaphor of Jesus makes sense to me.

And where does the allegory end? With Abraham? Moses? David? Because all these people were the descendants of Adam and Eve.

You are catching on.. yes I think all of them are legendary figures in a legendary story designed to teach social values to an ancient culture. Because social values are not really all that different now as then, it still has a lot of meaning to this day.

Mazz

October 1st, 2010, 02:05 AM

Sigfried:
Mathew and Luke of course disagree as to what the genealogies are, both trace from Joseph to David but neither chooses the same path. Matthew goes back to Adam but he skips a lot of people mentioned in the old testament.

But they are not the geneologies of the same person. One is Mary's, the other is her husband Joseph's, as Jesus was not Joseph's fleshly son, but the Son of God. So both with differ as to how they came through the bloodline from Jacob. Whatever argument they have who want to question Jesus geoneology there is a very reasonable explanation.

The earth in fact does not hang it moves through space by virtue of its inertia.

Even today we talk about the earth ''hanging'' in space. We use a lot of words in our English language that don't mean what they say or say what we really mean.
''I'll hang around for a while..'' ''I can't get the hang of this...'' and there are many more other words that we use that really don't make sense unless you understand exactly what the language is meaning to say.

You are limiting him.

To limit God is to make Him less than He is or to make something He has done less than what it is. God is Omnipotent, He is supernatural, and He does miraculous things. Anything less than that and you are limiting Him.

The universe is vast and magnificent. To limit God to 6 earth days is ridiculous. Why is a short creation better than a long creation?

The Universe is a great example of how absolutely powerful God is, that He could create all this in 6 days is not a problem. And the light years are no problem either if you realise that space is not flat and time is not absolute.

Why is a short creation better than a long creation?

Simply put....that's the way He planned to do it. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He wanted to. He had a plan and 6 days was part of that plan.

No where in the bible does it name the serpent to be Lucifer,

Have you read the Bible? Lucifer was named in Isaiah chapter 14 as the one God cast out of Heaven. He is Satan, the leading fallen angel that was cast down to earth for his rebellion against God. And it was Satan...the devil...the serpent...that tempted Eve.

Either he is an utter moron and thus imperfect or he rebelled against God which is the original sin.

He was created perfect, but he was also created with free will, so he had a CHOICE whether to do it or not. God did not create robots, He created free thinking intelligent people. And yes, rebellion...and pride...brought mankind down. It still does today BTW. You have a choice, but something inside you rebels against the truth. Why?

No where does it say god curses all creation.

Actually I am going through Genesis again at the moment. Do you not think that if the ground is cursed along with the people, that that would effect all the animals as well? And it was a cosmic catastrophe, Romans speak of the whole creation ''groaning'', that isn't just people. The whole creation wasn't just people, Gods creation included the whole Universe.

You seem to think that if we contradict one iota of the literal story that is wrong, but you can go adding in things that aren't in there as much as you like and that is the truth of it. I find that absurd.

The scriptures often confirm's other scriptures, you have to take them in context and you have to refer to other scriptures to get the full meaning of something. I am not adding anything, but you are making the scriptures say something entirely different, which is worse.

When the curse of sin and death entered this world, it was passed down to his children and thus to every living soul on this earth.
That is not what the story says.

That is what the Bible teaches. Again you can't just look at the story and not at the rest of the Bible. Read Romans 5 v 12.

Show me one passage in the Adam and Eve story that mentions sin.

It doesn't mention sin, it mentions that they disobeyed God and that was rebellion.....which is sin. You are just playing with words, but look at what they DID. it was sin.

We are born with a sinful nature.

Indeed, and so was Adam, else he would not have disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Sin is just part of our nature, not something we picked up along the way. Sin is disobedience to god and every human has it, including Adam. He did not get sin from the fruit, he got knowledge, the sin he always had.

Adam did not have a sinful nature, he had free will. They are not the same.
Until Adam disobeyed he was perfect, but he decided with his free will to do something that God told him not to....Eve was ''beguiled'' and Adam went along with it. Then the man blamed the woman, the woman blamed the serpent and so it goes on today, no one wants to take the blame for their wrong doing. Always pointing the finger at someone else. Of course God seems to be at the end of a lot of fingers today.

Because all men have sin and they always have had it and it pisses God off but he realizes its impossible for us not to have sin since that is how we are made so he offers a path not to cure the problem but simply to be forgiven for what is in our nature. The sin really happened, its just that it didn't come from an apple and Adam didn't give it to his descendants. We have it for the same reason the metaphorical Adam has it, its just what we are. Adam is just a means for explaining that with knowledge of right and wrong comes responsibility and a time when we can no longer live care free and without consequence. Its a story about growing up as much as it is a creation myth which is why it resonates with us.

(I'm chuckling) If Adam is only metaphorical, why should a metaphorical man have any effect on real flesh and blood people? Why should a metaphor pass anything down to us? It doesn't make sense.
You question what I say and tell me it isn't in the Bible, and then go and give your own idea of the story about Adam and Eve, creating something that isn't real or true. Does it mention anywhere in Genesis that Adam and Eve aren't real people?? :coolsmiley:

Jesus did not heal the world nor did he undo what Adam did. He simply offered forgiveness for the sin we all have, not for Adam's sinful act.

Jesus came as a man, though He was the Son of God, sinless and obedient to the Father. Jesus can only heal those who WANT to be healed, He can only saved those who WANT to be saved. He died for the whole world, yet because of their unbelief He can only save those who believe in what He did for them. Again,they have free choice to do so. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring man back to living eternally in perfection, but man has to accept that gift of love on the cross, He does not force His love on anyone, just as a man should not force his love on a woman. You can't make people love you, or otherwise that is not true love. God is the same. He loves us so much (John 3 v 16) , and He has done all He can to bring us back into relationship with Him, but it's still man's stubbornness, pride, arrogance, and rebellion that keeps him from coming to Him in repentance for their WILLFUL sin so that they can become His child again.

Jesus did not claim to remove sin, only to forgive it.

Again you just look at a certain passage or place in scripture and ignore what the rest of scripture tells us.
On the cross Jesus bore our sins in His body. 1 Peter 2 v 24.
We are healed by his stripes (scourging) Ditto. And Isaiah 53.

I don't think you will ever understand the way of redemption unless you read Gods Word and ask Him to show you. It is far deeper and more profound than a simple explanation here will reveal. It would be like explaining the sun set to a blind man. It would just be inadequate.

Well you must know I don't believe Jesus was real either right?

Well, why do we have the date on our calendar, 2010? If our years are numbered by someone who didn't exist, He certainly had a big impact on this world.

And where does the allegory end? With Abraham? Moses? David? Because all these people were the descendants of Adam and Eve.

You are catching on.. yes I think all of them are legendary figures in a legendary story designed to teach social values to an ancient culture. Because social values are not really all that different now as then, it still has a lot of meaning to this day.

No Sigfried. It was a question meant to challenge your assumption and idea about these people. Amazing how people who didn't exist and who are just a metaphor, can change history so much. Where do you think the Jewish people came from then? They were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The twelve sons of Jacob (Israel) became the twelve tribes of Israel. And Israel still exists today.
You would have to treat the whole of history up till the third century AD as myth, allegory, metaphor.....whatever you want to call it.....to stay true to your understanding of the Bible. You are in grave error.

Why don't we get back to the subject in hand or perhaps it's time to call it a day. :coolsmiley:

manc

October 2nd, 2010, 07:04 AM

Then you see my point. The origin of life is a distinct issue from whether or not life evolves. That's all I really care about, that we can agree on this point of "context."

I bring up God for two reasons.

1) You not only brought up the issue of abiogenesis, but insisted that one cannot separate Evolution from abiogenesis.

2) My own personal beliefs, the personal beliefs of many prominent scientists (including experts in evolutionary biology) both accept evolution and believe in God. Speaking from experience from my own life where I started as a hard core young earth creationist and transitioned to where I am now today, a staunch proponent of evolutionary theory (note that I'm even open to the possibility of abiogenesis) I know that oftentimes the largest barrier to someone of that background is that evolution MUST assume that God does not exist or have any role in the existence of life. But that is not the case and once that barrier can be breached, most theists are more open to evolution. That is why I have such an issue with individuals who insist on tying evolution to their own atheistic beliefs. What they fail to realize is that in assaulting theism in any form alongside their attempts to prove evolution, you actually close off a lot of minds to evolution. Of course this leads me to believe that popularizers like Richard Dawkins are really not interested in spreading scientific literacy in things like evolution, but only in evangelizing their own personal beliefs and philosophies in the guise of promoting science.

I dont care about god really, I'm not bothered where he exists or not. My views have nothing to do with god. As a scientist, you have to keep god out of the equation, otherwise you get nowhere, because you are not looking for data and explanations, you just use god to fill all the gaps in your knowledge.

So, whether there is a god or not is irrelevant. Life evolved from very primitive stuff hundreds of millions of years ago. We know this. It evolved from a common ancestor, and that evolved from the building blocks which are organic chemicals. Those chemicals evolved from elements and so on back to the big bang. We have to look for science for the origins of life - if we just say it must have been god we would learn nothing and you would still be a YECist.

So I sort of agree with you and disagree with you if you see what I mean. If I had to choose, I would stick with saying that abiogenesis is just part of evolution. It doesnt rule god out. If you wanna believe god had a hand in it somewhere, fine, but dont use him to fill in big gaps and stop looking. There is some fascinating science still wanting to be fully understood.

Sigfried

October 2nd, 2010, 06:51 PM

But they are not the geneologies of the same person. One is Mary's, the other is her husband Joseph's, as Jesus was not Joseph's fleshly son, but the Son of God.

It says no such thing in the bible, both are clearly listed as Joseph's ancestry. You can guess that one is Marry's and many have, but there is not proof of that, its just conjecture and priests have widely disagreed as to which one or whether marry was one or it was a second husband of hers etc... the bible is just wrong, but apologists try to figure out how it could be correct if you add information that isn't there.

So both with differ as to how they came through the bloodline from Jacob. Whatever argument they have who want to question Jesus geoneology there is a very reasonable explanation.

The problem is there are many reasonable explanations, none of them really proven and one of those explanations is its wrong.

Even today we talk about the earth ''hanging'' in space. We use a lot of words in our English language that don't mean what they say or say what we really mean.
''I'll hang around for a while..'' ''I can't get the hang of this...'' and there are many more other words that we use that really don't make sense unless you understand exactly what the language is meaning to say.

Yes words can mean just about anything you want them to, but that is why claiming they point to some truth doesn't make any sense. Either they are accurate or they aren't and in this case the earth does not hang so saying its a great insight is incorrect. Saying is kind of sort of close to the truth is fine, but thats pretty lame for an omnipotent god.

To limit God is to make Him less than He is or to make something He has done less than what it is. God is Omnipotent, He is supernatural, and He does miraculous things. Anything less than that and you are limiting Him.

There is nothing less miraculous about designing a world that unfolds naturally exactly according to your plan than making a world all at once the way you want it. If anything I'd say the former is harder than the latter.

The Universe is a great example of how absolutely powerful God is, that He could create all this in 6 days is not a problem. And the light years are no problem either if you realise that space is not flat and time is not absolute.

Space time may be not flat but that doesn't change the fact that said light is still millions of years old. You just stubbornly cling to an arbitrary value that doesn't really make any logical sense.

Simply put....that's the way He planned to do it. He could have done it in 6 seconds if He wanted to. He had a plan and 6 days was part of that plan.

But you don't know that, you just claim it because someone wrote it down. Its contrary to most of what we know, its contrary to itself (because night and day didn't exist on the first "day"), and its silly.

Have you read the Bible?

Yep. Did you go read genesis 3 like I asked?

Lucifer was named in Isaiah chapter 14 as the one God cast out of Heaven. He is Satan, the leading fallen angel that was cast down to earth for his rebellion against God. And it was Satan...the devil...the serpent...that tempted Eve.

It says nothing in Isaiah about Satan being a talking snake. King Ahaz is named as a serpent, Satan is not. You say creation took 6 days because thats what Genesis says, yet when Genesis says that a snake tempted eve you say no, that was really Satan even though it says nothing of the kind and actually talks about this story being why snakes, the animals, crawl on their bellies. You are just making things up and putting them in God's word. Is that not sinful to think you know better than God what happened?

It says snake, therefore it must be snake because what it says is accurate right?

He was created perfect, but he was also created with free will, so he had a CHOICE whether to do it or not.

Isn't disobeying God imperfect? How could he be perfect if he did something imperfect?

God did not create robots, He created free thinking intelligent people. And yes, rebellion...and pride...brought mankind down. It still does today BTW. You have a choice, but something inside you rebels against the truth. Why?

But that is my point. Adam Rebelled, just like every other person. He was no different than we were so he doesn't have to actually exist for us to have "become sinful" Every human ever was sinful, no first cause was needed. Adam was made prone to sin and so were we. He can "represent" all man kind and not need to be a cause of mankind. We are responsible for our own failings. The story of Adam merely illustrates that.

Actually I am going through Genesis again at the moment. Do you not think that if the ground is cursed along with the people, that that would effect all the animals as well?

No, it doesn't say that it is. It only says the ground is cursed and it explains how it is cursed, he has to toil in it to make food and it will grow thistles. That's all it claims. It doesn't say all of nature is somehow harmed. You can guess that is the case but it doesn't actually say that and since you take such a literal view I would think you would want to avoid putting words in god's mouth that aren't there.

And it was a cosmic catastrophe, Romans speak of the whole creation ''groaning'', that isn't just people. The whole creation wasn't just people, Gods creation included the whole Universe.

Creation doesn't groan as you well know, only people groan. This is part of my point. the bible is filled with alliteration and personification and all the other literary devices we use to convey meaning rather than literal truth. You are eager to say one passage is exactly literally accurate, while in a dozen other cases you are embellishing the story or using passages filled with non literal meaning to convey meaning rather than to say something concrete. Its not a book of physical science, its philosophy and morality and those things don't require exact descriptions or literal truth to have meaning.

But stick to something, either take it literal and exact and abandon all this made up metaphysics or open up and allow for the possibility that 6 days can (not must, can) be representative or symbolic.

The scriptures often confirm's other scriptures, you have to take them in context and you have to refer to other scriptures to get the full meaning of something. I am not adding anything, but you are making the scriptures say something entirely different, which is worse.

No, I am quoting exactly what they say. If you want to show that one part of the bible re-writes another, you will have to show me the passages to make your point. There is nothing in Genesis that involves Satan and nothing about original Sin being inherited. Those are constructs that theologians have added to justify some philosophical outlook they have. Many different branches of your religion read them differently and the plain text of Gen 3 is quite plain and direct. Its Snakes, and its Knowledge that are key elements, not Satan and Sin.

Read the book for yourself and see if you can personally justify how the bible says that is Satan and not a clever talking snake. I just don't see it. Also ask... "if Adam could choose sin, why is that different than us?"

That is what the Bible teaches. Again you can't just look at the story and not at the rest of the Bible. Read Romans 5 v 12.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

This says nothing about original sin or that Adam was the cause of our sin that we are forgiven for. We all clearly have our own sin and its our responsibility and Jesus forgives it. Nothing in this passage of the bible backs up what you are saying.

It doesn't mention sin, it mentions that they disobeyed God and that was rebellion.....which is sin. You are just playing with words, but look at what they DID. it was sin.

No, I already said his sin was his disobedience which happens before he was cursed. His sin was not made by god or given to the world. We were not made sinful by Adam, he just happened to be sinful just like we are. God's curse makes our lives harder, and god denied Adam immortality, but there is nothing about Adam's sin being contagious or destroying the world. God is the one that curses the earth and God makes Adam and Eve's life harder because they are sinners, but he doesn't plant sin in all man kind, nor does Adam or Eve. Its just that all humans have the potential for sin because they have free will. Adam is no different than any of his descendants, not because he cursed them but because Adam is human.

Adam did not have a sinful nature, he had free will. They are not the same.

I don't see how. Without will one cannot sin correct?
Adam used his free will to sin, so he must have had a sinful nature in order to make that choice.

Until Adam disobeyed he was perfect

How so? How can a perfect person make an imperfect choice without having a sinful nature, aka a nature that lets them and motivates them to disobey? Adam had that and it led him to sin. That is the story.

Show me where in Genesis it says that Adam was perfect... I just read it AGAIN and no where does it say Adam was made perfect. Again you are adding elements that are not actually in the story and thereby changing its meaning dramatically.

Then the man blamed the woman, the woman blamed the serpent and so it goes on today, no one wants to take the blame for their wrong doing. Always pointing the finger at someone else. Of course God seems to be at the end of a lot of fingers today.

Not always, plenty of folks take responsibility for themselves. Its quite clear that humans have both good and ill intentions and sometimes do good and sometimes to evil. Adam and Eve were exactly like that, sometimes good and obedient and sometimes bad and disobedient. They are examples of human beings and their story is illustrative of ourselves.

You want to say Adam somehow transformed from good to bad but that just isn't in there. Adam remained Adam, he gained knowledge and god punished him when he let his will lead him to sin. There is nothing there about perfect man and a fall and bringing sin to the world. That stuff was just added by later theologians as a kind of, look, its not your fault you were just made to be evil by that bastard Adam and Eve and the evil Satan. But they are making that stuff up because its not in the actual story.

(I'm chuckling) If Adam is only metaphorical, why should a metaphorical man have any effect on real flesh and blood people? Why should a metaphor pass anything down to us? It doesn't make sense.

He doesn't, and it doesn't and that story isn't about him passing anything to us. We are just like that. Nothing artificially made us sinful, that is just how being human is and Adam suffered from it just as we do. He illustrates human nature, he isn't causing human nature to be the way it is, not even if you take the story as literally true.

You question what I say and tell me it isn't in the Bible, and then go and give your own idea of the story about Adam and Eve, creating something that isn't real or true. Does it mention anywhere in Genesis that Adam and Eve aren't real people?? :coolsmiley:

I'm just reading the story as written... look here it is.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [g] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

20 Adam [c] named his wife Eve, [d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

No perfect Adam
No passing sin to others
No Satan
No perfect Adam

That is the story, you are the one adding things that simply aren't in it while at the same time insisting that everything is literally exactly what it says.

Either its literal and your read of it is making stuff up and thus wrong, or its not literal and those elements you want to add could be possible meanings.

I personally think its all simple fiction but I can read so I can say, if this is real, then this is what happened with more clarity than you can.

Again,they have free choice to do so. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring man back to living eternally in perfection, but man has to accept that gift of love on the cross, He does not force His love on anyone, just as a man should not force his love on a woman.

You of course take that entirely on faith. Clearly Jesus had little to no effect on the curse that god laid on the earth or the sin people have. Even the "saved" are still sinners and the world is still hard and childbirth still painful and the earth still needs to be worked. Clearly nothing in the world you know has changed, you only have a vague promise that there is something in some different world that is now different.

Whatever Adam did, and whatever God did as a result, hasn't changed a bit since Jesus came and went.

You can't make people love you, or otherwise that is not true love.

Nonsense. Love is gained by love. When you love someone and treat them with love and kindness they come to love you back. Treat someone with anger and hatred and you erode and destroy love. If god wants love then he needs to treat others with love. To me, offering some unrealized and unfounded promise of some future state of grace is far from loving. I'd do better. The love I show people is tangible and real and they can feel it and experience it here and now.

I can tell you right now I appreciate your time and attention and that in a general sense I have love for you as a person of kindness and grace just as I would for anyone who showed traits of a good and noble heart. That's real human feeling, not a ghost's love.

Now if you mean Make as in force, no, but to say love comes from empty promise and generational curses or flooding the earth... I don't think so. If the sacrifice of an incocent life is supposed to demonstrate how love works, I find that absurd. If my wife died on a cross I'd not consider that an act of love but of abandonment.

God is the same. He loves us so much (John 3 v 16) , and He has done all He can to bring us back into relationship with Him, but it's still man's stubbornness, pride, arrogance, and rebellion that keeps him from coming to Him in repentance for their WILLFUL sin so that they can become His child again.

Nonsense. If I thought for a moment there were a real God and he was kind and loving I'd stand in line. But I see no gods in the world I see only human beings and they can be both loving and crewel. I only rebel against the evil ones.

Again you just look at a certain passage or place in scripture and ignore what the rest of scripture tells us.
On the cross Jesus bore our sins in His body. 1 Peter 2 v 24.
We are healed by his stripes (scourging) Ditto. And Isaiah 53.

Again, that says nothing about Adam being the cause or source of those sins. Indeed it says they are our sins, not someone else's and they come from our willfulness not some scape goats. They only show that we have sin, not why.

I don't think you will ever understand the way of redemption unless you read Gods Word and ask Him to show you. It is far deeper and more profound than a simple explanation here will reveal. It would be like explaining the sun set to a blind man. It would just be inadequate.

And that is a big fat cop out. I have read God's word, I have "asked" for any guidance offered, and in my full honest thoughts and feelings it looks like another of earths many legends of gods that are human creations to personify the universe in our own image so that we feel in control of things and important and so that we live forever. Religion is not profound, its soothing and comforting. People are only blind because they choose to be and I made no such choice, I only call em like I see em.

The weakness in convincing me is because your arguments are weak and not well reasoned. You offer bible passages to prove things and the passages simply don't support your conclusions without you adding words that don't appear in the text.

Well, why do we have the date on our calendar, 2010? If our years are numbered by someone who didn't exist, He certainly had a big impact on this world.

The numbering does not change the reality. Jews use a different calendar with different numbers and its still the same world. The labels we use for things do not actual change what they are. Men still love and hate and birth and kill as they did before Jesus and they do after Jesus. Science has changed the world far more than Jesus. The people in the Church have changed the world more than God or Jesus have. Every significant religious act in our known history is done by Humans and not by gods of spirits.

No Sigfried. It was a question meant to challenge your assumption and idea about these people. Amazing how people who didn't exist and who are just a metaphor, can change history so much. Where do you think the Jewish people came from then? They were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The twelve sons of Jacob (Israel) became the twelve tribes of Israel. And Israel still exists today.

They came from other people just like the rest of us. Exactly what their names were or weren't is a detail we can not verify. I can find you stories about all kinds of legendary figures that are either greatly embellished or are entirely false. And often their names are changed to sound more impressive or match a cultural expectation. It doesn't really matter anyhow. Whether they were real or not real, the meaning of their stories is still pretty much the same.

Many great works of fiction inspire people to great acts in the real world, a story having happened or not doesn't really impact what it means to the people that read and react to it.

You would have to treat the whole of history up till the third century AD as myth, allegory, metaphor.....whatever you want to call it.....to stay true to your understanding of the Bible. You are in grave error.

No. I treat stories about ghosts and magic and monsters and gods as metaphor and allegory because so far as we know none of that is or ever was real. Stories about people doing brave, foolish, or noble things, I think may be real or legend but regardless are about people who certainly could be real and even if they are not real, the meaning of the story is not changed. A story of real heroism and a story of imaginary heroism is still about the virtue of heroism.

Why don't we get back to the subject in hand or perhaps it's time to call it a day.

Sure, but then you need to make an argument about evolution. You are the one who brought in the Adam story as being supporting evidence of some kind in the debate. Drop the contention and I won't need to respond to it.

Mazz

October 4th, 2010, 02:59 AM

Sigfried:
It says snake, therefore it must be snake because what it says is accurate right?

Wrong. It says ''serpent''. And in Revelation 12 v 9 it says, ''And the dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.''

Now, if you are true to the way you argue, you are going to say that it doesn't mention that he was in the garden of Eden. Scripture doesn't have to mention every detail in every place, it all comes together if you interpret it properly and of course by the Spirit that inspired the writers in the first place.

All you are doing when you read the Bible is trying to find holes to pick in it, you have no interest in whether it is true or not. And so it is pointless me arguing with you about it. And I haven't time to go through your whole post at the moment though I will try and read through it at some point in time.

Space time may be not flat but that doesn't change the fact that said light is still millions of years old. You just stubbornly cling to an arbitrary value that doesn't really make any logical sense.

Now I want to answer this point now because I watched a programme in TV yesterday called, ''Stephen Hawking's Universe. The Story of Everything.''
This is what Stephen said:

(After he said about how the Universe ''simply materialised out of........nothing.'')
''Then it expanded from the size of an atom to the size of an orange in less than a trillionth of a second. The Universe simply inflated into existence.''
But this is the bit that excited me....''when the Universe was 10 MINUTES OLD it was THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS in diameter.''

So can you see what he is saying here? If I were on a planet in the middle of all this (and no planets would actually exist at this point.. but to make the point) I would see the matter of the Universe THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY yet the Universe was only 10 MINUTES OLD. You see, the speed of light would have had to be that much faster at this point, which proves that this Universe, though it looks old because of the distances involved, in actual fact could be a lot younger!!:sly:

He went on to say later, ''So that's how everything got going which I think is a pretty fantastic story.'' And I agree!!!:coolsmiley:

Another fantastic thing he said was, ''The most likely explanation is that we are here......by accident. Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random (very scientific!!) until finally one formed that could copy itself. Then began the slow process of evolution that lead to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Given the right conditions and enough time!''

I would say that was another fantastic story that has not scientific proof whatsoever, and in fact, he gives none!!
He goes on later to say, ''On the face of it, life does seem too unlikely to be just a coincidence''. He gives us all the factors why and then he says, ''So is there a Grand Designer who lined up all this good fortune? ........In my opinion (note: HIS OPINION) not necessarily.'' Then he goes on to another fantastic story about the possibility of multi-universes! We are now entering onto the realms of Stargate and Star Trek!

All of what he said last night just dumbfounded me! Here is a very intelligent man, a professor and one of the greatest brains in Britain and he comes up with this!

THAT is why I believe in GOD. Because it is the most intelligent explanation for the Universe and the life on our planet that we can have. ''Accident'', ''chance'', ''random'', ''simply materialised from nothing'' (that is ...NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER.....NOTHING!!) is simply too fantastic to be anything than science fiction. Just think about it for a second.

And just to finish,
Creation doesn't groan as you well know, only people groan.

Really Sigfried, you are just picking at words again! Of course creation didn't actually groan.....''ughhhhhh''.....that is silly. I'm not even going to try and explain why.

Manc:
So I sort of agree with you and disagree with you if you see what I mean. If I had to choose, I would stick with saying that abiogenesis is just part of evolution. It doesnt rule god out. If you wanna believe god had a hand in it somewhere, fine, but dont use him to fill in big gaps and stop looking. There is some fascinating science still wanting to be fully understood.

There is some fascinating science from Stephen Hawkings too!! Did you read what he said? Actually I missed the ''science'' part. You more or less said the same thing he did and it still sounds fantastic! It's easy enough to say these things, and people actually believe it, which is the funny part! Yet, they cannot bring themselves to believe that there was a God Who created everything that exists, because to be quite honest, that is what we see all around us and in the heavens above.....a fantastic Universe that can only come by a CREATOR, Someone outside of space, time and matter. Try imagining no space, time or matter. You can't, because it doesn't exist.....NOTHING does. How on earth then, does SOMETHING suddenly come into existence when nothing was there in the first place!? There is no getting round it. You HAVE TO have some Eternal and Supreme Architect and Creator in existence to start with or it just simply does not make sense!:coolsmiley:

Sigfried:
It says nothing in Isaiah about Satan being a talking snake.

I repeat
Scripture doesn't have to mention every detail in every place, it all comes together if you interpret it properly and of course by the Spirit that inspired the writers in the first place

If it was relevant to the passage it would have been there.

YOU need to read the Genesis account again, because it first of all says a ''serpent'' and this was BEFORE Adam sinned, and in Genesis 3 v 14, AFTER Adam and Eve sinned, God said to the serpent, ''Because you have done this you are cursed......upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.'' So he did not crawl upon his belly like a snake BEFORE the fall. There is no detailed description of Satan as the serpent in the garden so we don't know exactly what he looked like but before the fall he was NOT a snake like we know them today. Indeed, I have never heard a snake talk in any case.:coolsmiley:

Your arguments are seriously flawed.

manc

October 4th, 2010, 05:03 AM

Mazz, forgive me for saying this, but why are you quoting the bible? If you wanna understand evolution, read up a bit on some of the basics. We have pointed you in the right direction. Most Christians don't have a problem with evolution, not in the UK anyway. In America maybe more than half are YECists, I dunno.

OK, you have got stuck into the astronomy bit, thats not really my department, but you can go out and actually see fossils stuck in the rock anywhere virtually.

Do you know that a lot of the early geologists were Christians? Genesis was all the rage presumably, but the weight of evidence they found was overwhelming. They had to bring the news to a society which often wasn't ready. A difficult job. They had to basically overwhelm the prevailing view with actual science. In Galileo's day that would have been a dangerous thing to do. Even for Darwin it was a biggie. Nowadays there is no excuse for YECism.

Anyway, dont think there is anything more I can say, unless you want to get stuck into some of the nitty gritty of the geology side in detail.

Mazz

October 4th, 2010, 08:51 AM

Manc: I don't think there is any point in me getting ''stuck in'' to the ''nitty gritty'' of geology side in detail with you, any more than you could get ''stuck in'' to the ''nitty gritty'' of astronomy side in detail with me.
And did you read what Stephen Hawkings said on my last post? Amazing story of how the Universe was an accident waiting to happen......but without time or space how is that possible eh? :coolsmiley:

Mazz

October 4th, 2010, 12:30 PM

Sigfried: I'v read all your post, and I find myself feeling profoundly sad that you feel the way you do about God, His Word and His sacrifice on the cross. I don't have anything I can say to help you understand. I wish I did. You really come across as someone who has a chip on his shoulder, maybe I am wrong, but maybe you are mad at God about something. Whatever it is, you need to settle it with Him. But as you say you don't believe He exists, it will be difficult to say the least.
All I can do now is pray that your eyes will be opened one day and you will see the Truth that can set you free.

Sigfried

October 4th, 2010, 01:26 PM

Sigfried:

Wrong. It says ''serpent''. And in Revelation 12 v 9 it says, ''And the dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.''

Serpent and Snake have the exact same meaning. Snake is simply the more common English word. Yes, Satan is called a serpent many times in the bible, and its figurative so far as I can tell. Satan is not actually a serpent and when they call him one its like saying "Sigfried is a dog" You don't mean I am a dog you mean that I am like a dog. Satan is like a serpent, low, scary, dangerous, sneaky, hidden etc... In the story its an actual serpent, not something like a serpent and its curse is to crawl around. Its like an Asops fable for snakes. "Why do snakes have no legs daddy, cause God cursed them son." That sort of thing.

I'm not twisting anything, I'm reading the story EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. You are saying that instead of reading it plainly, you have to "interpret" it to have a DIFFERENT MEANING because of other bible passages that use the same word to refer to another biblical figure.

I'm not saying you can't do that, but what I am saying is that if the serpent can be interpreted to be Satan even though it doesn't say that, then 6 days can be interpreted to be a much longer span of time even though it doesn't say that.

I'm not twisting anything, I'm holding up a mirror to your own words and showing you that when you find it convenient, you change the meaning of the text by adding or changing it as suits your needs, yet in other cases you insist that the plain language must be used with no interpretation other than its simple verbiage. It is what is called a double standard and most consider it intellectuality dishonest.

All you are doing when you read the Bible is trying to find holes to pick in it, you have no interest in whether it is true or not.

No, In this case I am not picking holes in it. I am only saying that if you do a literal reading you have to realize that Satan is not in the Eden story, or is a Perfect Adam, nor is Original Sin. If you open it to interpretation than all those things can be there, but if you do that you also have to open the door on genesis not being entirely literal either and doing so makes the bible make more sense with our real world and means it has less holes not more.

Its your world view and theology that has a hole, not the bible itself.

And so it is pointless me arguing with you about it. And I haven't time to go through your whole post at the moment though I will try and read through it at some point in time.

Personally I think the problem is you don't have a good response to my argument. Take your time, give it thought, and when you have a solid reason why one passage can be interpreted and another cannot, let me know.

---

Now I want to answer this point now because I watched a programme in TV yesterday called, ''Stephen Hawking's Universe. The Story of Everything.''
This is what Stephen said:

(After he said about how the Universe ''simply materialised out of........nothing.'')
''Then it expanded from the size of an atom to the size of an orange in less than a trillionth of a second. The Universe simply inflated into existence.''
But this is the bit that excited me....''when the Universe was 10 MINUTES OLD it was THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS in diameter.''

The problem is that he and others don't actually know this, its their theory based on mathematical models and while it may well be true, it requires all the laws of matter we deal with today, such as the speed of light, to not apply. During that period there really wasn't even matter (again according to the theory) the universe had no atoms or particles of any kind and scientists can't really describe it so much as just say how it behaved, whatever it was. Basically they think it must have been like that but they don't really understand what that was exactly.

So can you see what he is saying here? If I were on a planet in the middle of all this (and no planets would actually exist at this point.. but to make the point) I would see the matter of the Universe THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY yet the Universe was only 10 MINUTES OLD. You see, the speed of light would have had to be that much faster at this point, which proves that this Universe, though it looks old because of the distances involved, in actual fact could be a lot younger!!:sly:

There was no light at that point, no atoms, no electrons... we don't really even know what we would call it because nothing like it exists. And even that model would say any light from that time has long since passed us by. The million year old light we see today happened long after that, after the universe settled down into the kind of matter and energy we see today.

He went on to say later, ''So that's how everything got going which I think is a pretty fantastic story.'' And I agree!!!:coolsmiley:

Indeed it is. But it is also saying they know about as much about How all that happened as you would know about How God made creation, its mostly a mystery.

Another fantastic thing he said was, ''The most likely explanation is that we are here......by accident. Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random (very scientific!!) until finally one formed that could copy itself. Then began the slow process of evolution that lead to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Given the right conditions and enough time!''

I would say that was another fantastic story that has not scientific proof whatsoever, and in fact, he gives none!!

Guess what? Your right! It isn't Scientific and its not a scientific theory. Its just conjecture. The thing of it is, we just don't know how life started. He guesses chance because we know of nothing else that could cause it. We have no evidence of supernatural beings or aliens or any other intelligent agent that could have performed the task, yet what we do know is that "chance" happens all the time every second of every day and results in a lot of things happening.

Science only answers questions when it can support the answer. When it can't, your just guessing. Hawking is thus guessing how life started, not making a scientific claim.

He goes on later to say, ''On the face of it, life does seem too unlikely to be just a coincidence''. He gives us all the factors why and then he says, ''So is there a Grand Designer who lined up all this good fortune? ........In my opinion (note: HIS OPINION) not necessarily.'' Then he goes on to another fantastic story about the possibility of multi-universes! We are now entering onto the realms of Stargate and Star Trek!

Is the realm of Stargate and Star Trek any different than the realm of Zeus, Yahweh, and Osiris. If you ask me its not. Its all of a kind.

All of what he said last night just dumbfounded me! Here is a very intelligent man, a professor and one of the greatest brains in Britain and he comes up with this!

That is because even the greatest human minds are not omnipotent. All of us have very limited knowledge. Anyone claiming they absolutely know a truth are going far beyond their capabilities. Hawking was asked questions he doesn't know the answer to, but he did give his best guess based on what he knows. That is not science, it is opinion and even scientists have opinions.

THAT is why I believe in GOD. Because it is the most intelligent explanation for the Universe and the life on our planet that we can have. ''Accident'', ''chance'', ''random'', ''simply materialised from nothing'' (that is ...NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER.....NOTHING!!) is simply too fantastic to be anything than science fiction. Just think about it for a second.

Really? Why is it in most science fiction nothing happens by accident? In Stargate human life was created by The Ancients for example. Most myth has the world being created by some being. That puts your religion in the same basket with Zeus, Oden, Vishnu, the flying spaghetti monster, etc... is that good company from an intellectual standpoint?

I happen to prefer the much more honest answer... I don't know, one you won't find in hardly any fictional story be it religion or sci-fi, because its not sexy or exciting or grand or cool. Its just honest and kind of boring.

Really Sigfried, you are just picking at words again! Of course creation didn't actually groan.....''ughhhhhh''.....that is silly. I'm not even going to try and explain why.

Remember, I'm not saying the bible is wrong, I'm saying a literal reading of the bible (if you are consistent about it) is ridiculous. It wasn't meant to be read as literal word for word truth and that passage illustrated that point nicely.

If it was relevant to the passage it would have been there.

So original sin and Satan aren't relevant to genesis? They why are they part of your belief system? If it didn't matter why would you insist it was true? That doesn't make any sense.

YOU need to read the Genesis account again, because it first of all says a ''serpent'' and this was BEFORE Adam sinned, and in Genesis 3 v 14, AFTER Adam and Eve sinned, God said to the serpent, ''Because you have done this you are cursed......upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.'' So he did not crawl upon his belly like a snake BEFORE the fall.

Yes, presumably the serpent was just like other animals and had limbs before the fall... you know like a lizard does. He was however more crafty as it is said in the passage.

It goes on to say how serpent would bite womens heels and women would step on their heads. (which makes sense when you have no legs). Do snakes fit that description? Yep. Does Satan bite heels and have his head stepped on? I don't think so. Does Satan now crawl on his belly all the time? I though he was a spiritual entity, a fallen angel, and not some crawling snake creature.

Your view of that passage just doesn't make literal sense with the text. Discard the need for it to be literally exact and you can have him be Satan and just say all that stuff is metaphorical and it works fine the way you want it to. But insist that it is literal and you are just wrong about what the serpent in the story is.

There is no detailed description of Satan as the serpent in the garden so we don't know exactly what he looked like but before the fall he was NOT a snake like we know them today. Indeed, I have never heard a snake talk in any case.

And I have never seen a God either. Snakes don't talk and Satan is a myth as far as I know. You are the one that believes in the literal truth of the book, not me.

Your arguments are seriously flawed.

You will have to demonstrate that if you want anyone but yourself to be convinced by yours.

Sigfried: I'v read all your post, and I find myself feeling profoundly sad that you feel the way you do about God, His Word and His sacrifice on the cross.

Sorry if you feel sad about it. I am perfectly happy for the most part. I don't hate God or any more than you hate Zeus, I just think its a myth based on my life experience and the words of the bible. I appreciate the notion that Jesus died for my sins, its a nice idea but the honest truth is the world has not changed since that time. People are still sometimes very evil, sometimes very good, and the world itself is still alternately wonderful and harsh, sustaining and dangerous.

I think the lesson to take from Jesus is that we should treat one another as he called people to treat one another. Not to judge one man unworthy and another worthy because they were poor or born in difficult circumstance. To accept that since all of us are sinners we should likewise all forgive one another for our transgressions and keep hope that we can aspire to being kind and loving.

Christians like to say that what really matters is this imaginary heaven and some vague eternity of nameless joy. I say what matters is the life we know and making the best of it which means treating others with love and respect such as gives us joy ourselves. I take wonderful and complicated experience of the real world over a simple saccharine promise of an imaginary one.

You really come across as someone who has a chip on his shoulder, maybe I am wrong, but maybe you are mad at God about something.

I have a grudge against dogmatic religion insisting that the world be as they claim it to be rather than as it is. If some Christian decides that they won't cure their child's illness because God think its an abomination according to their book then I don't like them. If some Muslim thinks its OK to blow up innocent people because their god promises 100 virgins in heaven, I don't like it. If some Hindu thinks a child must live their life in poverty because they were born to another poor person, I don't like it.

I don't think you are any of those people, but they use the same rationally to treat their fellow humans like dirt, that you use to say that science is stupid. I like to stand up for what I believe in and I believe in human endeavor and kindness.

As for you, I can only hope that whatever your belief you will treat others with love and kindness, and from what I know of you I'm confident you will try. :)

Mazz

October 5th, 2010, 01:33 AM

Sigfried:
Personally I think the problem is you don't have a good response to my argument. Take your time, give it thought, and when you have a solid reason why one passage can be interpreted and another cannot, let me know.

I'v already written quite a bit but I'v lost it somehow!! :tickedoff:

I really can't do it all over again, so I'm just going to say this. I don't want to argue for arguments sake when I know that you really aren't interested in knowing the Truth about the Bible. I do have a response for what you say but I don't think it would make the slightest bit of difference to your belief system.

The Bible is a mixture of literal, historical, allegory, symbolism, poetry and prophecy, you have to be in touch with the One Who wrote it to truly understand which one it is and what He is saying. And as you don't even want to know Him then it is pointless to continue to just argue word by word and verse by verse. I would be throwing wisdom to the wind.

I appreciate the notion that Jesus died for my sins, its a nice idea but the honest truth is the world has not changed since that time. People are still sometimes very evil, sometimes very good, and the world itself is still alternately wonderful and harsh, sustaining and dangerous.

People have changed throughout history through believing in Jesus Christ, the world is a better place because of Christianity. My own testimony is like many others, I was once a person who swore, loved the alcohol, was selfish, smoked, lied, and did all those other things sinful people did....especially when I was young, and I changed dramatically, turning away from all those things and I can say I was a different person when Jesus Christ came into my life. So the world has been changed....people....millions of them have been changed for the better. And a lot of them changed history too.

As for you, I can only hope that whatever your belief you will treat others with love and kindness, and from what I know of you I'm confident you will try.

That is the whole reason I am on here. But I can only go so far with some people, and then I have to leave them in the hands of my loving God. I pray He will be able to open your eyes one day to see what you, at the moment, are incapable of seeing.

I am now finished with this thread. See ya!

manc

October 5th, 2010, 11:20 AM

Mazz, I read the bit about Hawking, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be reading into it. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Multiple universes. Personally I think the idea of multiple universes more likely than just one. There could be trillions for all we know, either simultaneously or in sequence or both. To me it makes sense. Maybe our universe formed as another very old one collapsed. Why not? There is no reason. No scientific one that I know of.

But this is all speculation. The rocks we can see and feel and study.

You just need to think about the basic questions, eg fossils getting more primitive as you go down, different fossils in different layers, unconformities, mountain formation, the ARCHAEOLOGY of the last few thousand years. There are towns more than 6,000 years old.

Ok, a very basic one. What about the ice ages? Answers in Genesis says there was just one, i think, and it was caused BY the flood! Funny how the Bible forgot to mention it.

But as an astronomer, what about the Milancovitch cycles?

Mazz

October 6th, 2010, 01:07 AM

Manc: You seem to have ignored the fact that I said I wouldn't continue on the subject of geology as I don't know enough to argue with you. But as for the fossil record I have already spoken about the lack of transitional forms and those nice neat layers having older and earlier forms, then younger and later forms just isn't there.

As for Stephen Hawkins, there are scientists that are questioning his logic let alone his science about the Universe. To say that it created itself is highly illogical let alone absolutely impossible which ever way you look at it. If there was NOTHING in the beginning, how could gravity be present? If there was NOTHING, then there was no gravity to help create the Universe. Can you not see the stupidity of this theory?
There had to BE SOMETHING......or SOMEONE there BEFORE the beginning.....and that means SOMETHING or SOMEONE Who was eternal and infinite and powerful.
Nothing short of a Supreme Eternal Intelligent Being can fulfil the role of Creator.
And if light speed was that much faster in the past it means that the galaxies are not as old as they say they are. The speed of light at 186,000 mps could not have been a constant.

It's a theory. The earth is supposed to have a 'wobble', but the length of times are questionable.

Leanne1

October 6th, 2010, 05:29 AM

Evolution. Charles Darwin created the idea/theory of Evolution. He gave reasons, numbers, answers to all the gullable ears of this earth. What people choose NOT to believe, is that on his deathbed he renounced Evolution saying that it was NOT true. There is huge debate as to whether Darwin became a Christian in his final moments so i amn't going to get into that. The few words that make Evolution disappear into thin air (in my opinion) are those written by which one of the greatest men that ever lived, Moses : "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". So simple.

manc

October 6th, 2010, 06:55 AM

Leanne, just two snags with this bit about Darwin recanting evolution. One, its not true. Two, even if it was, it would be irrelevant.

After his Death Lady Hope told a story that Darwin had recanted on his deathbed, but his daughter said it wasn't true:

The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views. (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Mazz

October 6th, 2010, 11:59 AM

Manc: How do we know who was telling the truth in this instance? Whether he recanted or not, he recognised himself when he wrote his 'Origins' book, that the one biggest problem he had with his theory was the fossil record. And he had no knowledge of DNA at the time which threw another spanner in the works so to speak.

But it is true that people will believe what they want to. It's just a good idea that what you believe is actually fact. Evolution is not whatever evolutionists try and tell you to the contrary. If you look through the paper thin curtain of arguments they put up you will see the evidence for something that could NEVER in a million trillion years, have come by chance or accident (as a very famous scientist suggested recently). I can't think of any idea more ridiculous.

manc

October 6th, 2010, 12:26 PM

His daughter said

"I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

There has been more stuff on this. Anyway, as I say, its not even very relevant. Darwin wrote the book, as they say, but evolution theory stands on the evidence, not on whether Darwin did or did not say something weird as he was about to snuff it.

Mazz

October 6th, 2010, 12:46 PM

Manc: Evolution will always be a theory whatever evolutionists say otherwise. The evidence is just not there in the fossil record.
It falls on it's head.

Sigfried

October 6th, 2010, 01:04 PM

Mazz, Manc: The both of you are degenerating into the weakest kind of debate here, making broad assertions without really supporting them and simply repeating your respective slogans.

Mazz, you especially. You just repeat the same lines over and over and the amount of actual information you bring with them has dwindled from minimal to none. Try hard or don't waste your time. Any time someone here challenges you, there is a backwards retreat followed by a platitude for your position.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take your work seriously.

Mazz

October 7th, 2010, 12:45 AM

Sigfried:
Mazz, you especially. You just repeat the same lines over and over and the amount of actual information you bring with them has dwindled from minimal to none. Try hard or don't waste your time.

I ''repeat the same lines'' because it is what I believe is the truth, and I have taken time to go into the evidence against evolution in posts gone by. I was leaving this thread because I had said enough to give a good argument against evolution but it was getting to the place where the Bible was being picked at. And I mention God because I believe He was the One Who created all things. He is the opposing side of this argument so why shouldn't I bring Him into the equation? I know only too well that evolutionists, and especially atheists want to leave Him out of the picture. Within an argument like this, that is not possible.

The Bible was never meant to be a science manual, but there is a lot in the Bible that was written which the writers would not have known in the past that agree with the sciences today. Don't ask because I have decided not to continue with this thread as I said before.

And information is ''none'' because I'v said what I needed to say before. It should be clear, from the lack of fossil evidence, to anyone who will see it......the transitional forms within the earth that show millions of years of very SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and gradual changes in creatures.......that the theory of evolution hasn't any solid proof to back it up. It is the one thing, on it's own, that shows there was no gradual and slow changes over millions of years.

Bye bye. :coolsmiley:

Leanne1

October 7th, 2010, 05:14 AM

Ok fair enough manc, but can i just ask something. When there are so many people desperately triying to cling onto theorys that scientists create from nothing such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, why do they do this when we are told so clearly how the world was created in the bible? If people want to know how the world was created so desperately, why do they believe theorys that one man created when they could turn to the bible where the very first words tell us how the world was created, and so simply. Why cant that be enough for people? Why do we have to complicate everything? And what is it that we want to hear? Anyway, even if Charles Darwins' children lied or were telling the truth, it doesn't matter because all we have to do is look at the unfinished fossil records and look at the biologists flimsy arguments. They are skating on thin ice and we all know this. But however, this is only my opinion, i amn't speaking for anyone else. I just think that if people are so desperate to cling to some theory, they should take a good look at how stubborn they are in the way that they believe theories that are unfinished and unexplained and, in my opinion, un-everything, when there is the first few lines of the bible that God created the heavens and the earth. No apes evolving, no explosions, nothing complex. Just a few words. Believe it or not. It seems so simple...?

Aside from all that, if Evolution really DID happen, then why are their still apes?? God created man in is own image, does that make God an ape?

manc

October 7th, 2010, 05:37 AM

Leanne, evolution isn't a theory one man created. Its an explanation of a body of evidence created from the research of thousands of scientists. The theory of evolution means the best way scientists can explain all the evidence.

Why are there still apes? We are apes. Think of evolution like lots of branches and twigs on a tree. One branch splits into two or more, those smaller branches have offshoots and so on. 6 million years ago an ape population had enough genetic variation going on to split into two lines. One went onto become chimps, one went on to us. Other lines went on to gorillas etc. Its pretty obvious how close we are to them even without genetics. They look fairly similar to us. So chimps are just as evolved as we are only different. They are better at climbing trees and remembering things. We basically got forced out of the trees by climate change probably, and had to stand on our own two feet. Literally. This freed up our hands more, and the rest, as they say, is history. 6 million years of it. Its fascinating stuff. I don't give a monkeys whats in the genesis. Its just people 2000 years ago guessing how they think the world might have been created. Its about as much use today as a chocolate fireguard.

You need to read the thread. Mazz has given up. Shame that, because I was looking forward to a new convert seeing the light. Nobody's asking you to give up your belief in god, just your belief in the literal interpretation of an old book they call the Bible. There is overwhelming evidence for the history of the earth that geologists give. There basically is no doubt. Not. Not a tiny bit. Bugger all. If you are serious, read the thread, and as I suggested to Mazz, get stuck into some of the detail. Pick one of the topics and read up, try to get your head round the actual science. It aint that hard. Thats why I concentrated on the geology. Partly cos Im not a biologist, partly cos you dont need to be. All you need to do is look at layers of rocks and think about how they were formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy5x7BkiCPM
very concise explanation of the creationist view

Leanne1

October 7th, 2010, 06:36 AM

Fair post, it makes no sense to me though.. i am sorry. But i have something here that my grandfather gave to me a few weeks before he passed away. I'll share it with you since you want to carry on the debate. Its a conversation between a lecturer and a student. I will have to quote it here as it is old parchment and not on the computer. Here goes. (L stands for Lecturer and S stands for Student)
L "Are there not three basic conceptrs of evolution? 1) Evolution (Chance) 2) Evolution (progressive 2) Evolution (Theistic)"
S "If all three believe in evolution then why does each group 'conclusively' PROVE the other TWO are impossible?"
L " Moving on.. what about the great findings of pre-historic man up to today? The Neanderthal skullcap..Modern dating methods show man to be older than Darwin could have imagined. <L show picture of Paranthoropus ABOUT 1,000,000 years old) Now this small brained heavy jawed MAY have been favoured the more lush habitats of eastern and southern africa"
S "excuse me sir, but in discussing this subject, most of the experts keep using the following phrases "perhaps"-"probably"-"may have"-"for some unknown cause"-"about"-"might have"... It sounds a little like they are guessing!"
L "Sit down"
S"Yes sir"
L "Pieced together by fragmentary fossil evidence, science can show the stages of man's long march from ape-like ancestors to sapiens! With wonderful names like ---Pliopithecus-Proconsul-Dryopithecus to Paranthropus to Homo Erectus and on and on to modern man!"
S shows a chart of some amazing findings that are rarely made public.
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human. Nebraska man - sceintifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Piltdown man - the jaw bone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Peking man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared. Neanderthal man - At the international Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from Arthritus. New guinae man - Dates away back to 1970 - - - This species has been found in the region just North of Australia. Cro-Magnon man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man... so whats the difference? Modern man - This genious thinks we come from a monkey..
Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.
L "Err...What about the latest finding in dating -- such as carbon-14 or potassium argon? You CANT dispute that!?" Or can he...
S "Recently, evolutionists tested by the potassium-argon method, strata in which leakley's nutcracker man was found and reported to be 1 and 3/4 million years old.- BUT when they tested other material in the SAME strata by carbon 14, it showed 10,000 years old. WHICH IS RIGHT? Dr. Whitelaw, A professor in nuclear engineering, claims it to be less than 7,000 years."
Another Student "Sir this actually happened. A LIVING mollusk was tested by carbon-14 and FOUND to be dead for 3,000 years!!!"
Another student "Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as Geologists claim (80,000,000 years) it's pressure would have dissipated long before this -- the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years!"
Another student "Maybe the earth isnt as old as we thought..."
S "Sir, We've been taught that it took millions of years to produce oil. Sir "THIS IS A FACT --- Scientists working in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from on ton of garbage in only twenty minutes."
L "Mutations due to the re-arrangement in D.N.A. expressed in light and dark moths in england prove Evolution" Lecturer shows a picture of a dark moth and a light moth.
S "Sir, they are two colour phases of the same moths. Its only because of the smog in England that the trees have darkened. The camoflage that once protected the light moths is gone and the darkmoths are NOW protected from the birds. There ARE no changes in the moths - But ONLY the ratio of the population."
Another Student "Sorry to change the subject but hasnt science produced life in the laboratort?"
L "Oh yes, its common knowledge"
Another Student "Im sorry sir, but those who say this, define LIFE in a way which MOST Evolutionary scientists wont accept. NOTHING has been produced that even resembles a creature that will reproduce itself!!"
L "..."
S "I have a question sir! What is the binding force of the atom? We KNOW that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. Also, that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral--BUT--The protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is that--LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER!!! Being that all of the proton in the neucleus are positively charged - they should repel each other and scatter ito space. What holds them together?..."
L "I dont know..."
S "Im sorry sir but i cant hear you?"
L "I SAID -- I DONT KNOW, YOU TELL ME"
S " Sir may i quote from the bible? It says that Christ, the creator, was before all things and by HIM - also it says "all things were made by him (Christ) and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3
Another Student "Then he was an invador from outer space?"
Another Student "Yes, "He (Christ) was in the world,and the world was made by him and the world knew him not" John 1:10.
L "They'll understand why im quitting..I'll simply tell them i cant teach it any longer..Im sorry gentlemen, but i can no longer teach evolution; it cant possibly be true".

I ''repeat the same lines'' because it is what I believe is the truth, and I have taken time to go into the evidence against evolution in posts gone by.

This is supposed to be a debate Mazz, you don't debate by just repeating yourself. When a point is challenged you counter point. I have many times explained to you how the fossil evidence works and you just say "well I say its wrong" without even explaining why. That doesn't cut it. Its not honest or engaged, its just standing on your soap box and spouting your opinion.

There are plenty of places where that is considered a good discussion but not here. Here we use reason and evidence to support out opinions. If you are tired of doing it then retire from the debate like you said you were going to. You dropped the ball, you aren't really entitled to hang about and pretend you are still in the game.

If you want to actually do the hard work of debating you can come back and play.

I was leaving this thread because I had said enough to give a good argument against evolution but it was getting to the place where the Bible was being picked at.

Tough luck, this is a debate board and everything here gets picked at. There is no free ride, you either support your ideas or you stay quiet about them. If you bring the bible into the equation as evidence then its fair game to attack that evidence. If you can't defend it then you stop debating it.

And I mention God because I believe He was the One Who created all things. He is the opposing side of this argument so why shouldn't I bring Him into the equation? I know only too well that evolutionists, and especially atheists want to leave Him out of the picture. Within an argument like this, that is not possible.

You are welcome to submit God as evidence but then God becomes part of the debate. If you don't want God as part of the debate then don't bring him up. What you can't do is bring up your faith and then not have it be questioned or challenged.

The Bible was never meant to be a science manual, but there is a lot in the Bible that was written which the writers would not have known in the past that agree with the sciences today. Don't ask because I have decided not to continue with this thread as I said before.

But you are continuing this thread, you've made a number of posts since you said you were done. And you will get responses when you do that that challenge you to debate rather than pontificate. This is not Online Preaching Network. Its Online Debate Network.

And information is ''none'' because I'v said what I needed to say before. It should be clear, from the lack of fossil evidence, to anyone who will see it......the transitional forms within the earth that show millions of years of very SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW and gradual changes in creatures.......that the theory of evolution hasn't any solid proof to back it up. It is the one thing, on it's own, that shows there was no gradual and slow changes over millions of years.

I'll say these points again, lets see if you can actually muster a response this time...

1. The Fossil record is but a tiny tiny percentage of the things that lived on earth. The chances any dead organize becomes a fossil are very very small because certain exact conditions are needed. Not every type of organizm that has ever lived is preserved in the Fossil record nor would any thinking person expect that to be true.

2. Every single Fossil in the Fossil record is a transitional form except those of species living today. It is only a matter of how many examples we have. Imagine you had a piece of paper with a single mark on it. Then you copy that to another piece and make additional mark. Do that 1 million times. That simulates a set of evolutionary life. Now choose one of every ten thousand of those pieces of paper to be preserved and burn the rest. That simulates the fossil record. Each of those 10 thousand is transitory from the first page to the last page but you don't have the complete record because only a fraction of the variations were preserved. Demanding every single mutation that ever happened to be preserved is just ridiculous because it is impossible since only rare examples are preserved in this way and only from populations that show large numbers and wide dispersal.

Each and every fossil you find is a transition from something else, to something else, but there will always be "missing links" because not every life form is preserved this way, only a very tiny fraction of them. Understand? What we do know is that every life form we find, including those no longer on the earth, share the traits of earlier life forms, and also share traits with later life forms, which lead us to believe they are transitional between those two other known forms of life. There are non human fossils that share traits with us, but with no other known primates. They can only be the ancestors of one modern species, human, but they themselves were not human. Either god made other types of humans, and they died millions of years ago, or we evolved from them. We have verifiable evidence for evolution, we don't have verifiable evidence for God.

3. We know for an absolute fact that much of the DNA in our bodies is the same DNA in the bodies of many other living organisms. It serves the exact same functions in us as in a Cat or a Mouse or a Fish. Others are more unique to us or to a more narrow related set of species. We have remnants of DNA from viral species that do not infect human beings, this is because those changes to the DNA were inherited long ago from species that such viruses did infect and transformed their DNA.

Bye bye.

Later and God speed but if you come back in this thread, it would be best to come back with responses rather than slogans.

Leanne1

October 7th, 2010, 10:35 AM

Sigfrieid - Instead of bashing other people and telling them to retire, i would love it if you replied to my thread? If you have an answer that is. Thanks! Peace

manc

October 7th, 2010, 11:18 AM

S shows a chart of some amazing findings that are rarely made public.
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human. Nebraska man - sceintifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Piltdown man - the jaw bone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Peking man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared. Neanderthal man - At the international Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from Arthritus. New guinae man - Dates away back to 1970 - - - This species has been found in the region just North of Australia. Cro-Magnon man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man... so whats the difference? Modern man - This genious thinks we come from a monkey..

Ok, I'm a bit knackered, so I will just try and answer this one. Basically it mentions a few mistakes, but what about the mountain of good fossil evidence?

Allow me to introduce you to Turkana Boy. 1.5 million years old, he died at the age of 13, poor lad

He was 5 ft 3 tall. Found in Africa. He's classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster. His brain size would have been about 910 cc in adulthood. A modern man's brain is about 1260. He was probably BETTER on two feet than modern man, an athletic runner. He probably didnt have much body hair. Facial features were more like an ape than a modern human. An athletic, intelligent man with a fairly apelike face. Man or ape?

Leanne1

October 7th, 2010, 11:49 AM

Ok. Before i even bother to get into the dates and names and other details, i need more than just one thirteen year old boy. I need a LOT more. How can i debate when i have just one picture?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Human_next_ape_skeleton.jpg
This image is the difference between a human skeleton and an ape. Look at the picture you included. Look at the pelvis, loot at it all! Doesnt match up..Anyway..THis was just an observation

Sigfried

October 7th, 2010, 12:16 PM

Thought you'd like to read this.

The funny thing is, when you get to create both sides of a discussion, its really easy to make your side come out the winner because you can put whatever stupid words you like into the mouth of the opposition. When you talk to real people who actually represent a different point of view, you have to do the hard work of debating real arguments. Want to see how that works?

Now I am the lecturer!
Sig: Evolution is a mechanism where by differentiation through mutation provides multiple paths for change and environmental pressures weed out non-beneficial changes and reward changes that lead to improved survival and reproduction. The process is not predictable nor sets a specific pattern as it depends on the environment. We call that chance but really it is merely the laws of nature. Whether this system was designed or self generating we do not know for certain but the operation of the system is well supported both by the fossil record and by our knowledge of the way living things operate and reproduce.

S "If all three believe in evolution then why does each group 'conclusively' PROVE the other TWO are impossible?"

Sig: You misunderstand. There are not three groups and no one has conclusively proven anything. What we have is a great deal of evidence for evolution as the best explanation for the life we have and the record of life we have in the past. Any idea a scientist comes up with is challenged by other scientists to try and find out if it can be proven false or not. This system of challenge ensures that bad ideas are discarded and those that remain are worthy of further consideration and experimentation. We are still learning the exact mechanisms of how life operates and how mutations occur and how genetic traits are expressed. We have a long way to go but are making great strides in our understanding. We can now measure the DNA code to observe changes in that code directly and we are beginning to understand how those changes in code become changes in living organisms.

SIG: " Moving on.. what about the great findings of pre-historic man up to today? The Neanderthal skullcap..Modern dating methods show man to be older than Darwin could have imagined. <L show picture of Paranthoropus ABOUT 1,000,000 years old) Now this small brained heavy jawed MAY have been favoured the more lush habitats of eastern and southern africa"

Student: "excuse me sir, but in discussing this subject, most of the experts keep using the following phrases "perhaps"-"probably"-"may have"-"for some unknown cause"-"about"-"might have"... It sounds a little like they are guessing!"

Sig: Very observant. A wise man never claims to know the absolute truth unless it can be objectively tested. While the majority of the evidence we have supports a given conclusion, there is not unanimous agreement because there is much we do not know and cannot test. We have no living samples or DNA from Paranthoropus and must make any conclusions based on the skeletal structure of the remains as compared to other remains and the skeletal structures of contemporary living things. These are guesses, however they are educated guesses based on a large body of known evidence. When a scientist has doubt, the proper course is to devise a test where by you can determine what is true and what is not.

Student: "Yes sir"

Sig: We can observe that in these fossil remains these creatures bore many striking similarities to modern humans which are not found in any other contemporary species. It is quite likely that either we shared a common and close ancestor with these creatures or they are one of our ancestors. We know that they lived and died in a time before modern human remains were found. We have some evidence that they may have been tool users although that may have been attributable to other species of the time.

Student: shows a chart of some amazing findings that are rarely made public.
Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

Sig: Yes, the first sample found was a jaw bone. Later discoveries found a complete skull and later in 1998 the remains of more than 50 individuals including complete skulls. Whoever provided you your information was strangely selective in what they told you....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

Beginning in 1997, a Spanish team has located more than 5,500 human bones dated to an age of at least 350,000 years in the Sima de los Huesos site in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain. The pit contains fossils of perhaps 28 individuals together with remains of Ursus deningeri and other carnivores and a biface called Excalibur. It is hypothesized that this Acheulean axe made of red quartzite was some kind of ritual offering for a funeral. Ninety percent of the known H. heidelbergensis remains have been obtained from this site. The fossil pit bones include:
A complete cranium (Skull 5), nicknamed Miguelón, and fragments of other craniums, such as Skull 4, nicknamed Agamenón and skull 6, nicknamed Rui (from El Cid, a local hero).
A complete pelvis (Pelvis 1), nicknamed Elvis, in remembrance of Elvis Presley.
Mandibles, teeth, and many postcranial bones (femurs, hand and foot bones, vertebrae, ribs, etc.)

Student: Nebraska man - sceintifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Sig: Yes this is true, in 1925 scientists, seeking to know the truth investigated the claim and discovered the tooth was misidentified by examining the other remains found. No modern scientist has ever used it as evidence for human evolution. Does your chart mention these easy to find facts or did they pass it off as a Gotcha without telling you the full truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, [2] and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted...

Student: Piltdown man - the jaw bone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Peking man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

Sig: Yes, that turned out to be an intentional hoax and was exposed by scientists as such in 1953 when they proved it was the jaw bone of an orangutan melded to the skull of a modern human. This was not realized for some time which is why it is such a famous example of a successful hoax. From day 1 of the discovery many were suspicious, but until accurate dating methods were developed we could not prove that it was a fake. It was eventually shown that the age of its component parts were different. Long before that it was seen with suspicion as it didn't match other early hominid remains that were discovered. It is a good lesson that you should always question everything rather than claim to know the absolute truth until it has been tested.

Again however, did you poster actually tell you that no one since 1953 believed this was a real fossil in the scientific community? It is strange that they would hide things like that from you, I wonder why that is.

Student: Neanderthal man - At the international Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from Arthritus.

Sig: Ahh, perhaps this poster of yours was made some 60 years ago, that may be the problem, I was hoping people weren't intentionally trying to deceive you, that would be quite shameful. Let's bring you up to date a bit shall we?

A great number of Neanderthal remains have been found, this is partly because Neanderthals lived not all that long ago, about 30-35 thousand years ago for the most recent remains. We have mountains of bones from these people including complete skeletons. We even have Neanderthal DNA which we have sequenced to get a look into their genetic make up. We know that they are not human ancestors since they lived at the same time we did but clearly we shared a common ancestor. We also know that they bred with modern humans so they were closely related. About 1-4% of Eurasian DNA is contributed by the Nanderthal race yet they have many distinct features that set them apart from modern man. It is amazing the things we learn when we seek knowledge in the world.

Student: New guinae man - Dates away back to 1970 - - - This species has been found in the region just North of Australia.

Sig: Interesting, I have never heard of this "New Guinae man" nor has any Scientist I could find. So far as anyone can tell it is something a man named Jack Chick invested and he seems to be the only person that knows what it is. He is a cartoonist rather than a scientist and his materials have been shown to be highly deceptive and outright fraudulent on more than one occasion. If your chart came from him, you may want to find more reliable sources of information.

Student: Cro-Magnon man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man... so whats the difference? Modern man - This genious thinks we come from a monkey..

Sig: Cro-Magnon is essentially modern man, or very close to it. He is a contemporary of other early human groups such as the mongoloid man found in east Asia. There are small differences such as the noted rectangular ocular orbits. The tended to be just a bit larger than modern Europeans whom seem to be their more direct decedents. These were essentially humans perhaps as different from modern Europeans as Europeans are from modern African born people. They likely had certain noticeable traits, but for most intents and purposes they were the same species as modern man and are treated that way by scientists.

Student: Romans 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

Sig: Yes, those who think they know the truth for certain are indeed foolish. Only by keeping an open mind and testing each idea can we arrive closer at the truth over time.

Student: "Recently, evolutionists tested by the potassium-argon method, strata in which leakley's nutcracker man was found and reported to be 1 and 3/4 million years old.- BUT when they tested other material in the SAME strata by carbon 14, it showed 10,000 years old. WHICH IS RIGHT? Dr. Whitelaw, A professor in nuclear engineering, claims it to be less than 7,000 years."

Sig: Ah, more studies from the 1950s. Nutcracker man is no longer considered to be an ancestor of modern man by most scientists. It is generally accepted to be about 1.75 million years old. Indeed when first discovered varying dates were set but carbon 14 is not good for dating specimens more than 60 thousand years old so using that is a poor means to date the fossil. The Argon method is much better for items of this age and is consistent with the dating of very similar fossils for the same species. Trying to compare the work done in the 50s to the work done today will indeed yield some interesting comparisons since we have learned a lot in 60 years.

Another Student "Sir this actually happened. A LIVING mollusk was tested by carbon-14 and FOUND to be dead for 3,000 years!!!"

Sig: When doing carbon 14 dating you have to take into account a number of factors that can contaminate the results. Molusks can take in materials in the substances they anchor to and can incorporate into their bodies carbon that they did not synthase themselves. When results like this were found scientists investigated trying to figure out how such a thing could happen. By testing the surfaces Molusks were found on they found that indeed the organisms showed traces that matched the carbon signature of the anchor points.

Another student "Dr. Melvin Cook said that if oil in the earth was as old as Geologists claim (80,000,000 years) it's pressure would have dissipated long before this -- the present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years!"

Sig: Students, you really need to bring this up with your geology professor, this is a Biology and life history class. On the face of it such a claim makes no sense. The pressure at the bottom of the ocean is always the same, that is because the weight of the water above it pushes down. This doesn't change unless the amount of water changes. The pressure of anything trapped inside the earth is going to always be equal to the amount of earth sitting on top of it. Until there is a passage for it to escape through, it will always be under that amount of pressure. That is simple physics. Apparently Melvin Cook could use some basic lessons in science or you are misquoting him. Did you know that Melvin Cook was not a young earth creationist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_A._Cook
Dr. Cook was an ardent creationist, and his writings on the subject are frequently quoted or cited by creationists. Cook was not, however, a "young earth" creationist, believing that "the creation was a refash[i]oning and reforming . . . of the surface features of the earth, not the earth as a whole" while "[t]he age of the earth turns out to be about half that claimed by geophysicists, but the solar system is found to be about the same as claimed by earth scientists."[1]

Again, someone seems to be picking only the truth they want you to hear rather than the whole story. I suggest you take advantage of the great wealth of information available today and research these subjects with a more critical eye.

Another student "Maybe the earth isnt as old as we thought..."

Sig: That is possible but we need to follow the evidence we discover rather than leap to conclusions. What you say may be true, I encourage you to study the sciences and devise a way we can test your hypothesis.

Student "Sir, We've been taught that it took millions of years to produce oil. Sir "THIS IS A FACE --- Scientists working in a lab, produced a barrel of oil from on ton of garbage in only twenty minutes."

Sig: Yes, mankind, through the discipline of Science has learned to do things that nature can not. We can create temperatures on earth that are greater than the surface of the sun. We can split the very particles that matter is made of and peer inside just one of the trillions of cells that comprise your body. Heat and pressure are required to produce petroleum and in the lab we can recreate that with much greater pressure and heat to speed the process. Unfortunately, it takes more energy to make oil than you can get from the oil so for us its not a practical way to harvest energy.

Sig continues: You can observe the mechanisms of evolution in modern animals, for instance the light and dark moths or the breeds of animals and plants humans cultivate. What we do is like an accelerated form of nature much as we can accelerate the production of oil. But very strongly selecting for genetic expression and the occasional mutation we can vastly accelerate the process and even select for traits that are not environmentally favored since effectively we are replacing the environment with our own selective system.

Student "Sir, they are two colour phases of the same moths. Its only because of the smog in England that the trees have darkened. The camoflage that once protected the light moths is gone and the darkmoths are NOW protected from the birds. There ARE no changes in the moths - But ONLY the ratio of the population."

Sig: No, you misunderstand a number of points. Firstly, the darkening of the trees is an environmental change and the fact that it was caused by humans is not relevant. Whatever the change, life is forced to react to it by surviving or dying out.

Now its true that this trait was already in the moth population as a natural variation. However as time goes by far fewer light moths are born because its the dark ones that survive and breed. Before then light moths blended better in some situations (bark is both light and dark normally). So the population is changing over time. Likely some light moths will always be born but they will not be the dominant form.

This is not an example of mutation which creates entirely new traits, to see that you must look at other examples such as the pit bull, a mutation causes its legs to stop developing and that trait was found to be desirable so it was carefully bred for until it became dominant in the line when bred for. We set an environment in which that change was beneficial and so pit bulls now near always have stunted legs.

Another Student "Sorry to change the subject but hasnt science produced life in the laboratort?"

Sig: No. Not if you mean abiogenesis or the creation of life from non living components.

Another Student "Im sorry sir, but those who say this, define LIFE in a way which MOST Evolutionary scientists wont accept. NOTHING has been produced that even resembles a creature that will reproduce itself!!"

Sig: I'm not sure what you mean. No one has made new life in a lab. Scientists have created genetically modified organisms that can indeed reproduce. It is fairly recent that this has been done but its quite common now.

Student: "I have a question sir! What is the binding force of the atom? We KNOW that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. Also, that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral--BUT--The protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is that--LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER!!! Being that all of the proton in the neucleus are positively charged - they should repel each other and scatter ito space. What holds them together?..."

Sig: You should take that up with your physics teacher, again, this is a biology class.

If you are truly interested in what we know about this you can read up on it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

The nuclear force is now understood as a residual effect of an even more powerful strong force, or strong interaction, which is the attractive force that binds particles called quarks together, to form the nucleons themselves. This more powerful force is mediated by particles called gluons. Gluons hold quarks together with a force like that of electric charge, but of far greater power.

Let's just say that you can't apply electromagnetism to sub-atomic particles because you need atomic level particles to create electromagnetism. Thats not exactly accurate but its the basic reason why your reasoning is flawed. You should really read up what the experts in that field have to say.

Student: "Im sorry sir but i cant hear you?"

Sig: You really should try pulling your fingers out of your ears once in a while.

Student: " Sir may i quote from the bible? It says that Christ, the creator, was before all things and by HIM - also it says "all things were made by him (Christ) and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3

Sig: This is not a Christian Theology class. Are you sure you are in the right place? Besides, you could probably do with some lessons there. Genesis does not have Christ or Christos involved anywhere and the creation is generally attributed to Gods creative spirit or Holy Ghost, others God the Father but rarely if ever Jesus the Son. You may not be a trinitarian though, there are a lot of differing views on what exactly the bible teaches you know. Regardless it has no place in a Scientific discussion because you have no way of testing that hypothesis.

Another Student "Then he was an invador from outer space?"

Sig: Who Christ? Your not making much sense here.

Another Student "Yes, "He (Christ) was in the world,and the world was made by him and the world knew him not" John 1:10.

Sig: Ahh I see, so Christ is an Alien? I'm pretty sure that is wrong. Jesus was fully human and also divine according to scripture. Perhaps you are trying to be funny? Its an interesting piece of metaphor and poetic writing but its not really relevant to the topic of evolution. God could well have made the world such that life evolves which seems a pretty smart way to do things if you ask me, but that is just an opinion.

Well I hope you learned something today kids. Study your science and don't believe people that only tell you half truths or make straw men arguments just so they can knock them down. Keep the theology in the theology class and always question the truth of any claim by putting it to a practical and objective test if possible.

-------

That is what a real debate is like Leanne1, not some BS cartoon tract that plays make believe with an imaginary idiot professor.

This image is the difference between a human skeleton and an ape. Look at the picture you included. Look at the pelvis, loot at it all! Doesnt match up..Anyway..THis was just an observation

You lack a couple key pieces of knowledge...

1. They aren't supposed to match because they aren't the same species... (I think you know this but your statement casts doubt on that.)

2. Modern apes are not thought to be ancestors of homo sapians. We are thought to have a common ancestor a very long time ago (about 13 million years), but the two branches of evolution from which we come diverged a long time back. While we do have a striking number of similarities, we are not children of apes.

Leanne1

October 7th, 2010, 02:07 PM

Science is all about predicting and explaining and reasoning. Religion is about faith, righteoussness and salvation.
This debate has turned into a mocking arguement where SOMEONE has put together dates of fossils being found and mocked someone ELSE who is simply debating and happens to be against evolution.
Your attitude is somewhat negative so to speak and i dont really have anything to say to someone who cant stand being told that their belief might in fact be incorrect. But hey, you seem to know it all right?...
I displayed the conversation from the lecturer and student (which you twisted my words with several times and mocked as if it were pre school talk) simply because it was one way of looking at Evolution. NOT because i wanted to offend you or any such thing.
As much as i love debating, i DO have much to learn and seen as i only joined THREE DAYS AGO i think allowances can be made for me putting in a conversation which i thought might have been to some others' interest. Clearly i was wrong..
I admire the amount of homework you have done on Evolution and i admire how strong you stand in your beliefs.
I also stand strong in mine.
I am leaving the debate NOT because i am giving up but because you have the attitude of someone who is only ever going to mock and twist words of others and i really can do without that i gotta say so..
Fare thee well! Peace be with you.

Sigfried

October 7th, 2010, 03:10 PM

Science is all about predicting and explaining and reasoning. Religion is about faith, righteoussness and salvation.

Indeed. (Testing is also critical to Science btw) And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with Faith, Righteousness and Salvation.

What tends to be an error in judgement, in my opinion, is when one tries to take a religious belief that is at its heart about Faith and Salvation etc... and then apply it to physical sciences. Old religious always had some "and this is how the world happened" story and that is not really the important part of the religion. It doesn't change how people act or treat one another which is what religious are about. the bible is not a book of science, its a book about human souls and the meaning of life rather than the substance of life.

Science and faith do not need to be at odds, but both sides need to make that choice. When someone attacks a scientific idea based on a religious text, they are bound to be wrong. Its like debating Auto Mechanics using a dictionary. On the same thread, Science can't tell you if you should love your mother. It might help explain why, but it doesn't tell you if its right or wrong.

This debate has turned into a mocking arguement where SOMEONE has put together dates of fossils being found and mocked someone ELSE who is simply debating and happens to be against evolution.

I am not mocking people, I am mocking their weak and unsupported arguments. Mazz is a nice person, I imagine you are too, but if you bring up arguments without knowing the subject well, then you are in for a drubbing on the subject. The only animosity I have is for the folks that make some of that "evidence" that creationists like to use. You must admit the sources you posted badly misrepresent the opposing argument and actively mock a straw man. It's not at all a fair way to discuss a subject and it deserves any ridicule I can offer it. If you represent your views that way as well, you will get what you deserve for it.

If on the other hand you approach the discussion with an honest openness, then you will get a more congenial response. Like this one.

Your attitude is somewhat negative so to speak and i dont really have anything to say to someone who cant stand being told that their belief might in fact be incorrect. But hey, you seem to know it all right?...

I don't know it all, and I seem negative because I am opposing your views. I can't argue with you and be utterly supportive at the same time. I would just sound patronizing. "Thats a nice try Leanne1, but you should try a little harder next time and I might take you seriously." No. I'll treat you like a grown up who can stand up for their own opinions and back them up with solid evidence and reasoning. I won't pull punches and I won't wear my kid gloves (unless you ask me to in which case I will try)

What I do know, is... more than you apparently do. And really its not that I am smarter or better or what have you, I just took the time to do research on what you posted to find out what both creationists and evolutionists and parties with no identified position had to say on the subject. Its work, it takes time, but it yields results and knowledge I didn't have prior. I debate partly to learn, your challenges get me to go seek more knowledge. Sometimes I find out my opponents are right and I give them due credit when they are.

I displayed the conversation from the lecturer and student (which you twisted my words with several times and mocked as if it were pre school talk) simply because it was one way of looking at Evolution. NOT because i wanted to offend you or any such thing.

I used the exact words of the "students" word for word in that reply. I didn't change a single line they spoke. I only used my own words instead of the imaginary professor. Each time I replaced the professor, I spoke to the exact subject the fictional professor spoke to but substituted real knowledge instead of pretend claims. I was honest. The tract you posted was not honest, it was deceptive. I didn't mock it, it mocked itself because in many places it does use pre-school talk to try and make its point. In my responses I talked like an adult which highlighted how infantile its position was.

You didn't write it, you don't have to stand up for it. You can certainly be better than Jack Chick, I'm quite certain of that.

As much as i love debating, i DO have much to learn and seen as i only joined THREE DAYS AGO i think allowances can be made for me putting in a conversation which i thought might have been to some others' interest. Clearly i was wrong..

We do make allowances, but that doesn't mean I give you weak arguments to joust against. It means if you make mistakes or break rules I understand and kindly explain them to you. There are no winners or losers here (though some try) I can't "win" this debate, but I can give you arguments and if you can't counter them, well then you need to either reconsider your position, or study harder to support it. Or you can walk away, no shame from me or anyone else. Whatever you feel, thats your own burden to bare.

But... if you post... and I care to respond... I'll do so and I will respond as well as I am able, which is often pretty well on a topic I care about.

I admire the amount of homework you have done on Evolution and i admire how strong you stand in your beliefs.

Thank you, and I admire your courage in coming here and saying your piece. ODN is not easy, and its not exactly warm and welcoming. ODN is challenging and rigorous. If you can hang with that, you get a lot of respect and kind words, if not, its best to move on to greener/gentler pastures.

I want to add that I don't "believe" in evolution or "believe" there is no God. Evolution is simply a good theory for why life is the way we observe it to be, and God is something that I have no personal experience with. If God wants to make himself known, I welcome it as I would anyone else. My fundamental observation on religion is that there are nearly as many beliefs as there are people and it seems unlikely any of them are very accurate.

I also stand strong in mine.

And that's great. Its never my goal to change people through debate beyond making them aware of information. What you do with it is your own business. I don't want to shake anyones faith nor do I expect to. I might like to open folks to "possibilities" and encourage them to ask questions of themselves, and find answers for themselves. I can only share my own thoughts and conclusions, not make them someone else's.

I am leaving the debate NOT because i am giving up but because you have the attitude of someone who is only ever going to mock and twist words of others and i really can do without that i gotta say so..
Fare thee well! Peace be with you.

I think you have misjudged me, but Peace be With you and God bless.

Mazz

October 11th, 2010, 05:17 AM

Leanne1:
Your attitude is somewhat negative so to speak and i dont really have anything to say to someone who cant stand being told that their belief might in fact be incorrect. But hey, you seem to know it all right?...

Exactly what I felt, and why I left.

I am leaving the debate NOT because i am giving up but because you have the attitude of someone who is only ever going to mock and twist words of others and i really can do without that i gotta say so..

I'd just like to thank you for your effort. I found your posts very informative and the lecturer/student Q and A very interesting. The Lord bless you!

manc

October 11th, 2010, 09:19 AM

Ok. Before i even bother to get into the dates and names and other details, i need more than just one thirteen year old boy. I need a LOT more. How can i debate when i have just one picture?[COLOR="Silver"]

This image is the difference between a human skeleton and an ape. Look at the picture you included. Look at the pelvis, loot at it all! Doesnt match up..Anyway..THis was just an observation

It was just an example. For one thing it was to show that some fairly complete fossils have been found. The IS a lot more, but this is incredibly complete for a 1.5 million year old fossil.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at, re the pelvis.

According to wikipedia, his pelvis could imply a better ability to run than us, so its hardly a case that it's more like an ape, though it doesnt cite a source. Anyway, its basically a modern-ish boy with an ape's face.

To me, comparing your photo, the boys pelvis looks more like the human ,which fits in with what I said. Don't you think it looks more human?

Actually I just found another site (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/turkana.php) that reckons he was only about 8, so, tall for his age.

Dunno about you, but one creation site I came across reckoned he his human. A human with a lot of differences to fully modern humans, such as the ape-like face.

By the way, why do you mention that the evidence for Peking man disappeared? I mean, its true, they were lost during WW2 in transit to the USA, but excellent casts remain.

Age approx 500,000 to 780,000 years old. He is also Homo erectus, but much later that Turkana boy of course.

The site where he was found has been made a world heritage site (http://www.unesco.org/ext/field/beijing/whc/pkm-site.htm).

To summarize, human or animal fossils or cultural relics were found at 26 localities in Zhoukoudian area. Among the localities yielded human fossils, locality 1 yielded Homo erectus fossils, early Homo sapiens fossils are from locality 4 or New Cave, and late Homo sapiens fossils are found in Upper Cave. As to artefacts, early palaeolithic tools were found at localities 1 and 13, middle palaeolithic tools are from localities 4 and 15, and late palaeolithic tools are found from the Upper Cave. Thus, each stages of palaeolithic industry were unearthed at different localities of the Site. Fossil discoveries representing various stages were also abundant in the Site. There are Late Cenozoic fishes from locality 14, and from the top deposit in locality 12. The mammalian fauna of Zhoukoudian locality 1 is the typical Middle Pleistocene fauna of North China and Upper Cave yielded the typical Late Pleistocene fauna of North China.

Here is one list of prominent hominid fossils, if you want to have a look.

http://hominin.net/specimens/

By the way, I know some of the are only just the odd fragment, but even from those experts can tell quite a bit.

While we do have a striking number of similarities, we are not children of apes.

I know what you are saying, but just to be precise, we ARE apes.

But yeah, the point you are making is that we didnt descend from other modern apes. Basically the most recent split as far as we are concerned as 6 mya approx, when we split from the chimp line. Sometime earlier our line obviously split from other apes.

Duelix

October 12th, 2010, 05:58 AM

I would join in, but I feel sorry enough for Mr. Creationist.

manc

October 12th, 2010, 06:33 AM

Well, there are two of them for a kick off. Well, I should say a Mr and a Ms.

Anyway, no need to feel sorry for them. I am the only Marxist on the site as far as I know, not noticed anyone feeling sorry for me.

In fact getting on for half the population of the USA is creationist, so its not a rare view by any means. Ok I studied geology so I have an advantage, but I have tried to explain the points in a way that doesnt require any extra knowledge.

So far I have failed to convince Mr and Mrs C.

Now that could be due

a. I've still failed to explain my main point clearly enough

b. They refuse to understand

c. My position is not as strong as I thought.

I tend to suspect mainly a with a bit of b. Mr and Mrs C will no doubt swing behind the c as usual.

Anyway, if you think you can explain any of the basics clearer, or just wanna reiterate or whatever, feel free.

You cant personalise these debates. Ok sometimes I do hold back a bit if I think I might upset someone, but I try not to, its pointless.

Duelix

October 12th, 2010, 11:55 AM

Sigfried:

Wrong. It says ''serpent''. And in Revelation 12 v 9 it says, ''And the dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.''

Now, if you are true to the way you argue, you are going to say that it doesn't mention that he was in the garden of Eden. Scripture doesn't have to mention every detail in every place, it all comes together if you interpret it properly and of course by the Spirit that inspired the writers in the first place.

All you are doing when you read the Bible is trying to find holes to pick in it, you have no interest in whether it is true or not. And so it is pointless me arguing with you about it. And I haven't time to go through your whole post at the moment though I will try and read through it at some point in time.

Now I want to answer this point now because I watched a programme in TV yesterday called, ''Stephen Hawking's Universe. The Story of Everything.''
This is what Stephen said:

(After he said about how the Universe ''simply materialised out of........nothing.'')
''Then it expanded from the size of an atom to the size of an orange in less than a trillionth of a second. The Universe simply inflated into existence.''
But this is the bit that excited me....''when the Universe was 10 MINUTES OLD it was THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS in diameter.''

So can you see what he is saying here? If I were on a planet in the middle of all this (and no planets would actually exist at this point.. but to make the point) I would see the matter of the Universe THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY yet the Universe was only 10 MINUTES OLD. You see, the speed of light would have had to be that much faster at this point, which proves that this Universe, though it looks old because of the distances involved, in actual fact could be a lot younger!!:sly:

He went on to say later, ''So that's how everything got going which I think is a pretty fantastic story.'' And I agree!!!:coolsmiley:

Another fantastic thing he said was, ''The most likely explanation is that we are here......by accident. Just by chance some molecules bumped into each other at random (very scientific!!) until finally one formed that could copy itself. Then began the slow process of evolution that lead to all the extraordinary diversity of life on earth. Given the right conditions and enough time!''

I would say that was another fantastic story that has not scientific proof whatsoever, and in fact, he gives none!!
He goes on later to say, ''On the face of it, life does seem too unlikely to be just a coincidence''. He gives us all the factors why and then he says, ''So is there a Grand Designer who lined up all this good fortune? ........In my opinion (note: HIS OPINION) not necessarily.'' Then he goes on to another fantastic story about the possibility of multi-universes! We are now entering onto the realms of Stargate and Star Trek!

All of what he said last night just dumbfounded me! Here is a very intelligent man, a professor and one of the greatest brains in Britain and he comes up with this!

THAT is why I believe in GOD. Because it is the most intelligent explanation for the Universe and the life on our planet that we can have. ''Accident'', ''chance'', ''random'', ''simply materialised from nothing'' (that is ...NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER.....NOTHING!!) is simply too fantastic to be anything than science fiction. Just think about it for a second.

And just to finish,

Really Sigfried, you are just picking at words again! Of course creation didn't actually groan.....''ughhhhhh''.....that is silly. I'm not even going to try and explain why.

There is some fascinating science from Stephen Hawkings too!! Did you read what he said? Actually I missed the ''science'' part. You more or less said the same thing he did and it still sounds fantastic! It's easy enough to say these things, and people actually believe it, which is the funny part! Yet, they cannot bring themselves to believe that there was a God Who created everything that exists, because to be quite honest, that is what we see all around us and in the heavens above.....a fantastic Universe that can only come by a CREATOR, Someone outside of space, time and matter. Try imagining no space, time or matter. You can't, because it doesn't exist.....NOTHING does. How on earth then, does SOMETHING suddenly come into existence when nothing was there in the first place!? There is no getting round it. You HAVE TO have some Eternal and Supreme Architect and Creator in existence to start with or it just simply does not make sense!:coolsmiley:

YOU need to read the Genesis account again, because it first of all says a ''serpent'' and this was BEFORE Adam sinned, and in Genesis 3 v 14, AFTER Adam and Eve sinned, God said to the serpent, ''Because you have done this you are cursed......upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.'' So he did not crawl upon his belly like a snake BEFORE the fall. There is no detailed description of Satan as the serpent in the garden so we don't know exactly what he looked like but before the fall he was NOT a snake like we know them today. Indeed, I have never heard a snake talk in any case.:coolsmiley:

Your arguments are seriously flawed.

Alright, why do you find the god explanation better? The fact that a sentient being materialized out of nowhere, and created us, seems much less likely than that we were created by chance.

First of all, if god were such a sentient being, the degree of complexity that would be required in his intelligence to create everything would need another intelligent designer to create this one. Thus, every designer would need a previous designer to design him. The fact that sentience can just exist for no reason makes absolutely no sense. Sentience is simply a byproduct of chemical reactions. When a person gets stabbed in the head, their personality drastically changes (I can give you examples of this). Thus, a supernatural "soul" does not give rise to sentience. We are simply packages of chemical reactions sustaining ourselves through electricity through neurons. Sure, the god explanation made sense to people in the middle ages who believed the World is flat. But now, when we have excellent ways of gaining pretty accurate evidence for any point, including observances of the body's function, opting to go for the simpler explanation is easier. The way things work is very very complicated, and being able to explain an entire field would take up too much space. Just read about these theories.

You must have intelligence and us a higher, more evidence based reasoning of thought to make decisions.

mican333

October 12th, 2010, 12:41 PM

First of all, if god were such a sentient being, the degree of complexity that would be required in his intelligence to create everything would need another intelligent designer to create this one.

I'm not trying to argue that there is a God but I don't see the logic of that argument.

If God exists, why would God need a designer?

Sigfried

October 12th, 2010, 01:20 PM

I'm not trying to argue that there is a God but I don't see the logic of that argument.

If God exists, why would God need a designer?

Sorry for jumping in but....

Its a question that is begged by the statement...

"The universe is so complicated and wondrous it must have had an intelligent designer."

It is not a statement that most Atheists support. We believe in no god and thus no designer for god is needed. We reject the notion that the universe requires design or creation and challenge the notion that it does by pointing out such a paradigm when applied consistently also demands that god too has a creator/designer and to say he does not is merely special pleading.

Duelix

October 12th, 2010, 01:28 PM

Because god has sentient intelligence, he could not have simply have arised out of nothing. Conversely, if you use the argument that god was eternal and didn't need a designer, then you could skip that necessity and say that the universe itself is eternal. Evolution is a simple concept.

A lot of chemicals existed in the earth's atmosphere: observation

These chemicals happen to be the basis of life today: observation

In fossil records, we see a gradual increase in complexity over time

In the short term, we see domesticated animals changing in feature

Scientists have manufactured synthetic bacteria using chemicals. The process could be repeated in nature.

Therefore, the assumption that these chemicals must have created the least complex forms of life makes sense. When you have life consisting of complex chemicals (again, ask any biologist who STUDIES the body), you can assume that these complex chemicals arise from an amalgation of simple chemicals. Again, we are not sure about the process, but despite that, this theory seems to be more valid as we just have one missing link. The god theory is slowly being refuted by the aforementioned evidence. People can't wrap themselves around the fact that we are chemicals, but we are.

Just because something cannot be completely be explained by evolutionists doesn't make it untrue. If god exists...

Why is their a progession of complexity?

Why are religious scriptures shown to be wrong in facts such as the earth being in the center of the universe, and being 6,000 years old?

How can something sentient just be eternal? Something sentient cannot be just a an existing force. Sentiesm as we know it is simply found in chemical reactions in the brain. Need we find it in another form to facilitate the creation of complex chemical creatures? The first creature (basic cells) were much less complex then what we are today.

chadn737

October 12th, 2010, 04:43 PM

Its a question that is begged by the statement...

"The universe is so complicated and wondrous it must have had an intelligent designer."

It is not a statement that most Atheists support. We believe in no god and thus no designer for god is needed. We reject the notion that the universe requires design or creation and challenge the notion that it does by pointing out such a paradigm when applied consistently also demands that god too has a creator/designer and to say he does not is merely special pleading. Where do you get the statement: "The universe is so complicated and wondrous it must have had an intelligent designer."

This statement is commonly attacked by atheists and at face value it appears to be valid, at least in application to the Teleological Argument, but it deliberately ignores the premise that the Universe and all that exists within it BEGIN to exist.

This is an essential point. It is in the Cosmological Argument, which is typically argued in conjunction, as part of, or assumed when arguing the Teleological Argument. All that is within the Universe is subject to its laws and features. If the Universe is necessarily finite, then so is all that is within it. This introduces the necessity of a first cause into the equation. God is not part of or subject to the Universe, so this necessity of a first cause does not apply. Complexity of God does not need a causal explanation because of this simple difference between God and the Universe.

Those familiar with this common counterargument know that its popularity stems from Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion." I will not go so far as to give him total credit for it because there are obviously features that can be traced to older arguments that are presented far better. However, Dawkins deliberately ignores the fact that in both the Teleological and Cosmological Arguments, he ignores this necessity of first cause in the Universe because the Universe has the distinct property of beginning to exist. In ignoring this, the argument he attacks is essentially a caricature of the real argument and thus little more than a straw man.

Duelix

October 12th, 2010, 06:26 PM

Then god exists in his own universe that resulted in the creation of this one. Therefore, something must have created god, and his own universe. God must have had a creator, otherwise he couldn't exist. Why not skip the step that god is eternal and created everything?

Sigfried

October 12th, 2010, 07:08 PM

Where do you get the statement: "The universe is so complicated and wondrous it must have had an intelligent designer."

I understand it to be the central thesis of the intelligent design argument, or at least the "universe" edition of it since it mostly tries to explain life rather than the universe at large. I'd wager you dollars to doughnuts I can find theists in this thread making that argument many times over.

This statement is commonly attacked by atheists and at face value it appears to be valid, at least in application to the Teleological Argument, but it deliberately ignores the premise that the Universe and all that exists within it BEGIN to exist.

True enough.

This is an essential point. It is in the Cosmological Argument, which is typically argued in conjunction, as part of, or assumed when arguing the Teleological Argument. All that is within the Universe is subject to its laws and features. If the Universe is necessarily finite, then so is all that is within it. This introduces the necessity of a first cause into the equation. God is not part of or subject to the Universe, so this necessity of a first cause does not apply. Complexity of God does not need a causal explanation because of this simple difference between God and the Universe.

Indeed, I tend to favor the notion that the universe is not finite in duration or potential space.

In ignoring this, the argument he attacks is essentially a caricature of the real argument and thus little more than a straw man.

I'm with you that the arguments are often caricatures, but I would say that is true of both those who commonly make it as well as those who commonly attack it.

I understand that there are many cosmological models and while some suppose a beginning of creation others do not and those that suppose a beginning have very little way to explain what that beginning was but rarely is the word God of the bible posited as the cause. I don't know is the more common answer. Although either way there is a notion of first cause at play as you say.

I find the notion of a creation of the universe counterintuitive to what I know about it, although generally that knowledge (mine) is admittedly pretty limited. but I am good at asking questions. :) I was a pro at stumping my very well read physics professor in high school with the neigh unknowables suggested by the more dramatic knowledge we do have. So I'm good at getting to the heart of some matters even if I can't tell you why.

For me, because nothing we know is created or destroyed, only transformed and trans-located, it makes little sense that the universe was a creation and much more that rather it is an ever transitory eternal thing. Whatever preceded the big bang, if that indeed is an accurate picture of the known universes early moments, was simply a different state of the universe rather than nothing. Be it a dimensional collision of branes or a state of compressed matter we can only imagine or an inverse side of a super massive collapse of all available space time or whatever... something was likely there. The notion it was some kind of ghost mind that has no physical matter but has complete power of all physical matter simply doesn't sync up with any observed moment of reality that I or anyone I have ever communicated with can produce and so I discount it as a practical answer. To say it simply always existed only in a different state syncs up with pretty much everything I observe and any human has ever observed about the world around us.

The one catch is the big bang which argues that at leas so far back as we can predict, there is an origin point to what we can observe. But even that comes with the "what we can observe" clause.

Whenever God comes into the picture two "numbers are invoked" 0 and infinity. Both those numbers are more conceptual that practical. We never have a real absolute zero of all things and we never have a demonstrable infinity of anything finite. They "solve" the dilemma of first cause because the notion of first cause presumes the existence of them. They become circular definitions...

If the universe had a 0 point then only an infinite could be the first cause of it. Well if we remove the 0 point or the infinite then we have little need of the other and since I've observed neither I feel it reasonable than neither are true.

chadn737

October 12th, 2010, 07:17 PM

Then god exists in his own universe that resulted in the creation of this one. Therefore, something must have created god, and his own universe. God must have had a creator, otherwise he couldn't exist. Why not skip the step that god is eternal and created everything?

I don't think you've even bothered to think this through.

You ignore that the Universe begins to exist. This is not an assumption, but the conclusion of Cosmological research (i.e. the Big Bang). It has also been demonstrated that inflationary models of the Universe (i.e. Big Bang Cosmology) is past-finite, meaning that it does not extend infinitely into the past. This applies even to multiverse models. So when I say that the Universe began to exist, I'm not simply assuming this, but working from a premise supported by the facts.

This premise does not apply to God or anything else that exists "outside" and "separate" from the Universe.

It is not only logical, but bloody common sense that if something doesn't begin to exist then there is no creator for it.

To make the argument that God necessitates His own creator you must demonstrate why it is a necessary premise for God to begin to exist in the first place. The problem is that you can't. This is contrasted with the our own Universe where overwhelming reason and evidence can be given for why it does have a finite past and thus a beginning.

Thirdly, you assume God must have an existence equivalent to our. This is demonstrated in the assumption that God must exist within His own Universe. But this is also an unprecedented assumption and is also a form of anthropomorphism. Consider our own Universe. What we know as Time and Space are part of the fabric that is our Universe. Its not simply that Universe begins at some point, but that both Time and Space also begin then. The expansion of our Universe is also an expansion of Time and Space itself. So these concepts of Time and Space do not apply or do not have the same meaning as we understand them when talking about existence that is not part of our own Universe.

In arguing that our Universe came from another Universe you are resorting to a form of multiverse where these same notions of Time and Space still exist. The problem with this is that the past-finite nature of inflationary models that explain the Big Bang and our Universe apply to the broader notion of a multiverse so that even the multiverse itself is past-finite. You don't solve anything by resorting to a multiverse explanation, you simply push back the point of creation, a completely unnecessary expansion of entities.

manc

October 12th, 2010, 11:18 PM

I can think of two ways the universe could have started. Well actually I think its possible that there are or have been many universes, but still, how did it all start?

Well maybe we just have to accept that is possible that 'something' (some form of energy or matter ) has always been around as far as our understanding goes, ie there is no such thing as nothing

or

maybe there was nothing, but nothing is unstable and ultimately tends to produce some small particle or packet of energy which sets in train a whole sequence. But again, this really means that there is no such thing as nothing. It might be nothing as we understand it, but it has a sort of potential anyway.

Mazz

October 13th, 2010, 01:23 AM

Manc: You said you don't think anyone feels sorry for you, well I do. But not in the way you or other atheists feel ''sorry'' for me or any other believer. You see believers in Jesus Christ care about people and love to see them come out of the darkness and ignorance they are in and see the Truth that God is an Eternal and Omnipotent Being Who loves them. That He designed and created all there was at the beginning. Of course, man messed it all up by deliberately going against the Masters instructions.....and anyone who has ever had anything technical and tried to follow the multitudinous instructions will know....when you don't follow the instructions to the letter, you get a mess and nothing works!
For Adam, there was only one simple instruction to follow.......''Don't touch......''
(Don't we often have to tell our own children that.....and what do they usually do!?) Adam failed.

It doesn't matter what you say or believe, God exists and no amount of man's philosophising and theories will ever.....EVER....be able to rid this world of His Reality.

The amazing thing is that He still loves you even when you deny Him and argue against His existence.....that's the way HE IS. And Jesus showed the extent of that Love when He died on the cross for you....YOU.

I think I answered this in the above, but He created all things which means He designed them as well. He made everything perfect.....at the beginning. But as I said, man messed it up.....so anything that is wrong in the world today is not God's fault but man's.

I realise you were answering Duelix post so my reply was really for his benefit.

mican333

October 13th, 2010, 06:35 AM

I think I answered this in the above, but He created all things which means He designed them as well. He made everything perfect.....at the beginning. But as I said, man messed it up.....so anything that is wrong in the world today is not God's fault but man's.

How can a perfect being (God) make an imperfect creation (man)?

If I made something that didn't work as I intended it to, I can hardly be said to be perfect.

Sigfried

October 13th, 2010, 07:32 AM

Manc: You said you don't think anyone feels sorry for you, well I do. But not in the way you or other atheists feel ''sorry'' for me or any other believer.

I don't think it is very loving to assume that atheists are in-genuine in their emotions or sympathies for other people. An atheist mom loves her child as much as a Christian or Muslim or any other Mom on earth.

You see believers in Jesus Christ care about people and love to see them come out of the darkness and ignorance they are in and see the Truth that God is an Eternal and Omnipotent Being Who loves them.

So do the Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Confectionist, Jews and so on.

This is not a preaching platform Mazz. If you want to preach your faith then you should do so in the Shooting the Breeze forum where you are not expected to debate and support your contentions.

If you are going to post here, you need to bring evidence and argument to bare, not a bunch of assertions about your faith. You are also very off topic.

.and anyone who has ever had anything technical and tried to follow the multitudinous instructions will know....when you don't follow the instructions to the letter, you get a mess and nothing works!

Unless of course the instructions are flawed.

It doesn't matter what you say or believe, God exists and no amount of man's philosophising and theories will ever.....EVER....be able to rid this world of His Reality.

Then it doesn't matter what you say or believe either for you are not a god and thus do not know the truth any better than I do.

The amazing thing is that He still loves you even when you deny Him and argue against His existence.....that's the way HE IS. And Jesus showed the extent of that Love when He died on the cross for you....YOU.

Jesus has not done anything appreciable for me and a great many people have given their lives over the years for the sake of other people whom they love and care for. Self sacrifice is actually a very common human trait, even extending to people giving their lives for others. I don't find Jesus to be unique in that regard and if indeed he is an immortal and all powerful god then his death is not real death but merely a minor and temporary inconvenience. Jesus did not give his life because he is (according to your belief) still alive and is effectively immortal and all powerful. That hardly seems like a true sacrifice to me. I'm far more impressed by real men and women who willingly risk or give their very limited lives for the sake of others they love.

theophilus

October 13th, 2010, 08:25 AM

Conversely, if you use the argument that god was eternal and didn't need a designer, then you could skip that necessity and say that the universe itself is eternal.We know by observation that the universe isn't eternal.

Scientists have manufactured synthetic bacteria using chemicals. The process could be repeated in nature.This process did not happen spontaneously but required intelligent action.

How can something sentient just be eternal? Something sentient cannot be just a an existing force. Sentiesm as we know it is simply found in chemical reactions in the brain.But isn't it possible that there are other forms of sentience besides what we know?

Need we find it in another form to facilitate the creation of complex chemical creatures? The first creature (basic cells) were much less complex then what we are today.The first cells may have been less complex but they were still too complex to have happened naturally.

How can a perfect being (God) make an imperfect creation (man)?

If I made something that didn't work as I intended it to, I can hardly be said to be perfect.When God created man he was perfect. God gave him free will and he used that will to disobey God and became imperfect as a result. God knew this would happen and he also knew how he would make a way we can be forgiven for out sins. The Bible indicates that he did this because he intended to bring about some greater good through our fall and redemption. Ephesians 3:9,10 describes this as
the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

mican333

October 13th, 2010, 08:53 AM

When God created man he was perfect. God gave him free will and he used that will to disobey God and became imperfect as a result.

So God intentionally turned us into flawed beings?

God knew this would happen and he also knew how he would make a way we can be forgiven for out sins.

Considering he intentionally altered us into flawed beings, why do we need forgiveness for being what God made us into?

And if he knew exactly what we would become and designed us to be that way, then at all times we are what God intended us to be and therefore we always lived up to his expectations.

The Bible indicates that he did this because he intended to bring about some greater good through our fall and redemption.

If you are already perfect you cannot become better.

manc

October 13th, 2010, 09:21 AM

I still haven't had, I don't think, and answer to the most basic question, how come different fossils are found in different beds, and life gets simpler as you go down the stratigraphy?

This is my number one challenge to the YECists. Surely you can come up with an answer to that? Apologies if you have and I have missed it or forgotten?

This bird had claws on its wings like the baby Hoatzin. It also had sharp TEETH! Physically it has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. Its clearly a transitional fossil between the dinosaurs and birds (birds are classed as dinosaurs actually) .

11 have been found and most show feathers. Now small dinosaurs had some feathers, but these are advanced ones - flight feathers. Yeah. Dinosaurs scales evolved into feathers, and the later got to be airborne !

THe universe isn't eternal? The fact is that time started existing when the universe came into being. Before there was a universe, time and space were 0. Because there was no time, for all of our purposes, the universe has existed for all time. Yes, it is technically some 8 billion or so years old, but time itself is 8,000,000 years old.

chadn737

October 13th, 2010, 06:18 PM

THe universe isn't eternal? The fact is that time started existing when the universe came into being. Before there was a universe, time and space were 0. Because there was no time, for all of our purposes, the universe has existed for all time. Yes, it is technically some 8 billion or so years old, but time itself is 8,000,000 years old.

You can take that view, but what does that explain? Ask yourself that. Does that explain how the Universe, how Time, how Space began? No it doesn't. And that is the question. How and why did the Universe begin to exist? Why does Time exist? Why does Space exist?

Part of the problem here is the assumption that a cause must be prior to the result in a physically temporal fashion. I pull the trigger on the gun, the gun shoots. The cause comes before the effect.

But there is another option, the cause and effect are simultaneous. Imagine that there is a bowling ball that has been sitting on top of a pillow eternally. The pillow will be depressed because of the weight of the bowling ball. In this instance, the cause (bowling ball sitting on the pillow) occurs simultaneous to the effect (a depression in the pillow). Cause and effect both occur at t = 0 rather than our normal conception of cause and effect where cause is at t = 0 and effect is at t = 1.

This illustrates that you do not eliminate the necessity for a cause just because time (or the cause) does not exist prior to the beginning of the universe. So your argument here answers.....nothing.

theophilus

October 14th, 2010, 07:51 AM

So God intentionally turned us into flawed beings?No, Adam did this when he disobeyed God. God knew what he would do and used Adam's action to carry out his own plans.

I still haven't had, I don't think, and answer to the most basic question, how come different fossils are found in different beds, and life gets simpler as you go down the stratigraphy? Perhaps this will answer your question:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record

The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order. But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.

As the Flood waters rose, they buried organisms in the order that they were encountered. This means the major groups found in the fossil record appear according to where they lived, not when they lived.On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.

You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried.

This site, answers in Genesis, is full of outright lies and subtle deception.

The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order.

Stop the tape. Evolution DOES NOT predict that creatures will arise in a specific order. Evolution only predicts that life will change and adapt to its environment. If things get wet, it will favor things that live with wet. If things get foggy, it will favor creatures that use senses other than sight and so on. Evolution is a system, not an outcome. This site is lying to you about the theory it argues against and it does it to make their argument plausible.

But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.

There is no such thing as a theoretical first appearance prediction. They are making that crap up. It is a pure straw man.

As the Flood waters rose, they buried organisms in the order that they were encountered. This means the major groups found in the fossil record appear according to where they lived, not when they lived.

But sadly for you, that is not how they appear. Fossils in a given location will show sea creatures, then later swamp creatures, and then later desert creatures. to say they all lived in that location at that time is ridiculous.

On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial.

A. Flood waters don't bury things, if anything they uncover things and wash stuff away in normal floods. This flood is described as rising up the waters which wouldn't wash anything just put water on top of it, and when the watter recedes it will carry sediment with it meaning most of the land animals bodies would be pulled into the see.

B. Furthermore the water would act as a sift, moving heavy objects to the bottom of the sediment and light ones to the top. This is nothing like what we see in either the earthen materials of the living fossils.

C. If the flood were responsible for fossil creation then you would expect the fossil record to show a consistent dating for all living things and a random age for mineral sediments. Instead we find that age measurements show a progressive layering where older items are below and newer items are above for both the minerals and the fossils, what we would expect from slow accumulation of sediment rather than instant depositing.

In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.

No its not. What we find is that in the same place there are layers of fossils with the old ones on the bottom and the newer ones on the top. This BS idea thinks that ocean creatures will be on the bottom because the flood waters got to the ocean first.... Earth to creationists... floods don't kill ocean creatures, they live in water!!! In other areas of the earth there are no oceanic fossils. This flood notion covered the whole of the earth so you would expect fairly consistent results. The natural science evidence is that plate tectonics which we can observe in action to this day, move sections of the earth from being underwater to being on land and vice versa and both the geologic movements, the features of the land, and the fossil record all line up to that same conclusion.

You can also see another interesting pattern that confirms what we would expect from a global Flood. You would expect many larger animals to survive the Flood waters initially, leaving their tracks in the accumulating sediment layers as they tried to escape the rising waters. But eventually they would become exhausted, die, and get buried.

And if that happened you would expect to see them all die in the same places in high ground... but that is not what we find in the fossil record. What we would expect is to find footprints in the same geological period as we find the fossil remains... and guess what... that is what we found... which is why we deduced that is what likely happened. If the evidence pointed to there being a huge flood, then that is what scientists would have concluded.

Most scientists especially in the early days of science were Christians. The thing is, their objectivity led them to question what they had been taught by an old book. When they learned it didn't all add up, the either questioned their faith, or simply adjusted it so that they had a more realistic view of how accurate a 3000 year old tome is in regards to geology and natural science even if it may be very accurate about God and the human heart.

You aren't engaging your brain here, just coughing up what some apologist constructed in a desperate attempt to counter the evidence by lying to you about what the evidence is and what the leading explanation says.

Chadn is a faithful Christian, but he is not closing his eyes and plugging his ears to the simply facts of the world around us because of it.

Bohagen

October 20th, 2010, 09:38 AM

I have a thought, don't take it too seriously but, what if God DID create the world just not as how the Bible says. If He spoke to people through dreams and burning bushes there might be a chance that something was misinterpreted. Scientist say in the Big Bang theory that one hydrogen atom blew up and created the universe, now religious people can't call that claim ridiculous because their beliefs are based on a book, and the idea that everything popped up out of nowhere isn't exactly plausible either. Then there is the question of where that one atom came from in the first place. Personally I am beginning to believe that god set science into action and that evolution was just part of it. The blame goes to whoever wrote the book wrong.

Like I said don't get all upset it is just something I have been thinking about. If I missed something just tell me.

manc

October 20th, 2010, 11:14 AM

Well as Sigfried says, evolution is simply you survive if you happen to be suited to conditions. Its not 'progress'. But the general trend is obviously going to be the most primitive ones at the bottom, in the older rocks, and that is what we see. After that we see more complex creatures and plants appear in later times, as we would expect. It obviously takes time to evolve certain things.

Theo- you are NEVER ever ever gonna find a human buried in Cambrian rock. You wont find a dinosaur, you wont find anything apart from a few worms and shellfish etc. Little things that crawled the sea bed. These were preceded by the Precambrian rocks, which go back to microbes. These sedimentary rocks were formed when earlier volcanoes were worn down over millions of years. The first life began nearly 600 million years after the earth was formed.

rockondon

January 11th, 2011, 12:28 PM

When God created man he was perfect.
And when man is perfect and God commands man to obey Him, man disregards that and does what the talking snake says instead.
Perfection seems overrated.

The first cells may have been less complex but they were still too complex to have happened naturally.
And you base this unfounded opinion on what exactly? Wishful thinking?

If you were right and God really did make the first life on earth, evolution would still be true. It wouldn't effect the theory of evolution at all. Evolution is what happens after life is already there; the manner it came to be there is irrelevant.

I know its comforting to think that a magical being exists and I understand the appeal of inserting 'goddidit' into every question mark of our existence. It takes integrity and courage to truly examine the world objectively and reconcile what we see with one's belief system. If you consider all that mankind has ever learned, you will see that it was learned by seeking out a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. Can life form naturally? Absolutely!

rcarty

February 2nd, 2011, 09:55 PM

he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Your implication is that these several lines of evidence independently agree with each other. However, Radiometric dating's accuracy, in a case by case basis, is decided upon by it's agreement with the presupposed age of fossils in superposed layers. If the results don't match they are explained away as contamination or some such. Likewise I have found in every case I have looked at that the other evidences also depend upon the microbes to man evolutionary age of the earth. Changes which have happened to that absolute age as you state in your post continue to be in a similar range, tweaking the value not resetting it and starting over. The value has always been great enough to allow for microbes to man evolution.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods).

Do you have references to these multiple dating methods' results? Do they include all results done, or only the ones which agree with the presupposed age of the earth? Moon rocks were dated by various methods, and the results were more than 90% outside the presupposed range. Strangely enough, only the dates which agreed with their presupposition were accepted as indicative of the moon's age, and that's all that is ever quoted. There is a link on this page to the full 116 date results and methods. Note that there are isochrons in that list which also do not agree.

"Sample 10017 was dated by five different sources with nineteen different results."
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i9f.htm

This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

Please explain how the value was independently derived, and not validated due to it's concurrence with an already 'established' evolutionary age for the earth.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

Since there are isochrons in that moon rock list which do not agree with the others for the same sample it is obvious that it is not such a proven and sure method as is claimed. Although one might reasonably conlcude that some samples from the moon will date younger due to their annealing date reflecting some impact event, that does not explain all. Sample 8 has two isochrons outside the accepted range, which are ignored, and six isochron results which are inside the range, which are accepted. This shows clearly that the acceptance or rejection is arbitrary and dependent on a presupposition of an evolutionary timescale.

If you hold to a young earth, then you believe the earth to be only 6000 or so years old. Is that the case? If so, then how do you account for human cave paintings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting)from tens of thousands of years ago?

How exactly were those cave paintings dated? The wiki article you linked to only states it was done by dating the pigments in one case, and in one other cave states they used radiometric dating, in spite of admitting earlier in the article "..methods like radiocarbon dating can be easily misled by contaminated samples of older or newer material..".

Dr. Lisle's actual calculation is not on the AiG page linked to in your TalkOrigins page, so the claim of his making an elementary mathematical error is obviously an ad hominem. Your calculation here represents a linear recession rate, which is vastly oversimplifying the calculation.

Gravity affects objects more strongly the closer they are to each other. This means, if there are no other factors, the calculation would not be linear, it would be exponential. There is also the issue of frictional coupling. This is mostly tidal dissipation, which is a major reason why the moon is recessing in the first place. My understanding is one must assume a smaller oceanic tidal dissipation and thus less tidal friction/torque in the past in order to allow for the moon's recession to be compatible with a 4.5 ga age. One must also start arbitrarily with a single continent, either at one of the earth's poles or wrapped completely around the earth at the equator to keep the tidal friction down. One must then ignore uniformitarian rates of tectonic plate movement, which are asserted for all other evolutionary interpretations of earth's past. One must assume the single continent configuration was present for the majority of the earth's past, until only recently when the land masses somehow snapped into their present locations. One must also ignore rising and falling sea levels, which is the evolutionary explanation for the majority of the sedimentary layers in the geologic record, if one is to use a single calculation. Otherwise one must use evolutionary estimates for those various rising and lowerings of the ocean to produce a value that is anything other than hopelessly inaccurate.

This article goes into some detail on the issues.
http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp

rcarty

February 3rd, 2011, 01:39 AM

Big Bang and young earth.
The star fuse simple material became more complec material..
...
4.57 billion years ago a star die and supernova occur ejecting large amount of cosmic dust..
...
Meanwhile cosmic dust & meteorite continuously unified adding mass & volume to the planet.
...
When the volume of the planet large enough, the 2nd process occur.
...
This how our Earth Formed 4.57 billion years ago.

Nice story. How do you know this is what happened? Has anyone seen any of these steps actually happen in our lifetimes in a telescope? You state it like it's all fact, however it's all speculation, isn't it? Here are a couple of quotes from Mike Riddle on his DVD Astronomy and the Bible which pose problems for the long ages and Big Bang position.

"Supernova remnants indicate a young universe. In 1054 AD the Chinese recorded observing a supernova from the Crab Nebula, making it as bright as Venus. It was observed for about a month. In 1604 Galileo and Kepler saw a supernova. In the 1980s another one was observed. There are three stages to supernova remnants. First stage is one that has recently exploded, perhaps in the last few hundred years. Second stage is ones that have exploded in the last few hundred years to perhaps a million years ago. Third stage is ones that have exploded a million or more years ago. If the universe is billions of years old we should see supernovas in all of these stages. At least 2 in the first stage, 2260 second stage and 5000 third stage. If the universe is young we should not see old supernovas, only recent ones. At least 2 in the first stage, at least 125 second stage and no third stage. We actually observe 5 first stage, 200 second stage, and 0 third stage."

"If our universe is about 20 Ga old (2 X 10^10), and there are 200 billion stars per galaxy (2 X10^11) and 100 billion galaxies (10^11) 100 billion galaxies X 200 billion stars divided by 20 billion years is about 1 trillion stars forming per year. That's 2.7 billion stars forming every day, or 31,700 stars forming per second. We should be able to look up pretty much anywhere in the sky and see a star forming within a second or two, but after much observation we have never observed even one."

China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and one of the oldest continuous civilizations. The oldest pre-civilized Neolithic cultures found in China to date are the Pengtoushan, the Jiahu, and the Peiligang, all dated to about 7000 BC. Pengtoushan has been difficult to date and has a date variance from 9000 BC to 5500 BC, but it was at this site that remains of domesticated rice dated at about 7000 BC were found. At Jiahu, some of the earliest evidence of rice cultivation was found. Another notable discovery at Jiahu was playable tonal flutes, dated around 7000 BC to 6600 BC. Peiligang was one of the earliest cultures in China to make pottery

What do they use to arrive at those dates for each culture?

Carbon14 dated some rice to arrive at the date range.
"Pengtoushan has been difficult to date accurately, with a large variability in dates ranging from 9000 BCE to 5500 BCE"

There is NO evidence to support an earth that is 10-12 thousand years old. There is a plethora to support one that is 4.5 BILLION yrs old. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Yes, there definitely is evidence to support a young earth. It's largely the same evidence used to support an old earth. The difference is in the interpretation, which is based on one's presuppositions: one's worldview.

So God is lying to us with His own creation? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a theological basis.

God is not lying to us if we don't accept a plain reading of what He said. That's our own lie to ourselves. That's our own error to wilfully ignore what God said. Jesus' first miracle recorded in the Bible was turning water into wine. Was the wine created with the characteristics of maturity or not? Wine is made by man from grapes through a purely naturalistic process over a period of possibly years. Was it deceitful for Jesus to make wine from water? The servants who poured water into the jugs, then immediately poured out wine were not deceived, they knew exactly what had happened. Yet, what was the declaration from the master of the wedding ceremony? That the wedding host had saved the best wine for last. Inherent in that was an assumption that the wine had come about through the normal lengthy process. The master of the ceremony was not intentionally deceived, he could have asked the servants where they got the wine from and they would have given him their eyewitness testimony. Instead though, the MC assumed the wine was much older than just a few minutes. It was his own error, not deception.

For example, at one time "science" thought the earth was younger than is now widely accepted within the scientific community. The age had been calculated based on the cooling rate of the earth and it was thought that the only heat source that could affect the equation was from space. Later, radioactive isotopes within the earth's crust were found and this radically affected the equation. So, "science" can be wrong at times, but when it is wrong, it possible to find another valid scientific explanation to explain the discrepancy.

I'm not sure about the time frame of what you refer to here, but I do know that Charles Lyell set about in his book Principles of Geology to specifically overturn (make impossible) the Biblical timeline. One of the things he used to accomplish this was the age of Niagara Falls. He discarded decades of local observation of erosion rates in excess of one meter per year and published in his book a rate of about one foot per year,which he picked specifically so that it would result in an age for the falls (30,000 years) which would exceed the biblcal timescale.

The one foot per year erosion rate for Niagara was in edition 1 of Principles of Geology, which came out 2 years before Darwin went on the Beagle. Darwin had a first-edition with him.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp

After 85 years of observation (Tovell, W.M., The Niagara River, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1979) found the rate of erosion was averaging more like 4 or 5 feet per year, confirming if anything the 40-year rate given to Lyell was a conservative number, but it was still much more accurate than what Lyell picked to fit his hidden agenda. Since the gorge downriver is much narrower than where the falls is today (and also than where it was in Lyell's day, about 200 meters downriver from where it is today), the rate would have been even faster in earlier years before either set of observed rates.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp#box

GoldPhoenix

April 8th, 2011, 04:35 PM

Nice story. How do you know this is what happened? Has anyone seen any of these steps actually happen in our lifetimes in a telescope? You state it like it's all fact, however it's all speculation, isn't it? Here are a couple of quotes from Mike Riddle on his DVD Astronomy and the Bible which pose problems for the long ages and Big Bang position.

You are aware that how the planet Earth came into existence and what the Big Bang explains are two completely different things, right?

Are you aware that Mike Riddle has absolutely zero formal training in any field of science, let alone cosmology or astronomy? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=46) With absolutely no credentials, I hardly see any reason to accept what his bare assertions. In fact, I think I'd like to address some patent falsehoods:

"Supernova remnants indicate a young universe. In 1054 AD the Chinese recorded observing a supernova from the Crab Nebula, making it as bright as Venus. It was observed for about a month. In 1604 Galileo and Kepler saw a supernova. In the 1980s another one was observed. There are three stages to supernova remnants. First stage is one that has recently exploded, perhaps in the last few hundred years. Second stage is ones that have exploded in the last few hundred years to perhaps a million years ago. Third stage is ones that have exploded a million or more years ago. If the universe is billions of years old we should see supernovas in all of these stages. At least 2 in the first stage, 2260 second stage and 5000 third stage. If the universe is young we should not see old supernovas, only recent ones. At least 2 in the first stage, at least 125 second stage and no third stage. We actually observe 5 first stage, 200 second stage, and 0 third stage."

Clearly, he doesn't know what he's talking about here; we observe supernova all the time:

Since 2000, professional and amateur astronomers find several hundreds of supernovae each year (572 in 2007, 261 in 2008, 390 in 2009). For example, the last supernova of 2005 was SN 2005nc, indicating that it was the 367th[nb 1] supernova found in 2005.[40][41]

Historical supernovae are known simply by the year they occurred: SN 185, SN 1006, SN 1054, SN 1572 (Tycho's Nova) and SN 1604 (Kepler's Star). Since 1885 the letter notation has been used, even if there was only one supernova discovered that year (e.g. SN 1885A, 1907A, etc.)—this last happened with SN 1947A. "SN", for SuperNova, is a standard prefix. Until 1987, two-letter designations were rarely needed; since 1988, however, they have been needed every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

His notion of "recently" is a bit off, as well. It should be noted that we can see supernovas from billions of years ago because we can only see "old photographs" (the light created when they were destroyed) of stars that are billions of lightyears away from us.

We use terms like "lightyears" because it's a very intuitive way of visualizing this. If an object is 1,000 lightyears away, it will take the light 1,000 years to travel to us. This means that the supernova occurred in 1011 AD, it would only have reached us this year.

"If our universe is about 20 Ga old (2 X 10^10), and there are 200 billion stars per galaxy (2 X10^11) and 100 billion galaxies (10^11) 100 billion galaxies X 200 billion stars divided by 20 billion years is about 1 trillion stars forming per year. That's 2.7 billion stars forming every day, or 31,700 stars forming per second. We should be able to look up pretty much anywhere in the sky and see a star forming within a second or two, but after much observation we have never observed even one."

That's not quite how it works. Most of the stars that have been created came from earlier in the universe when there was a lot more hydrogen to create stars, but it still happens now:

This is a picture of the Eagle Nebula, a portion of it that is called "The Pillars of Creation." The edges of the "pillars" have stars that are forming, we can see that the gas in the pillars are condensing due to gravity and new stars are being birthed.

Now more to the point: It's somewhat amusing that this lecturer states that supernovas are somehow bad, in some observational sense, for Big Bang theory (even though what he's suggesting is patently wrong and has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory). Observationally, it's because of supernovas that we know that the Big Bang Theory is true. A particular type of supernova (Type IA Supernovas) is used to determine the numerical accuracy of the Big Bang Theory. Type 1A supernovas have the wonderful property that they have a constant luminosity (luminosity does not change over spatial distances, it depends completely on the object), but the light that is sent from it undergoes redshift (directly correlated to distance, the wavelength decreases the farther light travels). Because type 1A supernovas are so prevalent, cosmologists have used them to look very far out into the universe (and therefore very far back in time) to determine where and when these supernovas happened, giving us a deep understanding of precisely how the universe is expandingback to early times after the Big Bang. This along with our strong understanding of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Yes, there definitely is evidence to support a young earth. It's largely the same evidence used to support an old earth. The difference is in the interpretation, which is based on one's presuppositions: one's worldview.

I see you've been watching some Kent Hovind. No, scientific evidence has little to do with interpretations of this nature. Two scientists might disagree over the evidence of theory, but no scientist is confused over the basic foundations of their own discipline. This is why even 'scholars' like Michael Behe, who supposedly support "Intelligent design", still believe that man evolved from apes. He believes this because it's transparently true and obvious to anyone who's seen the evidence.

This is a rather good post on ODN which shows literal evidence of evolution: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php/21665-Evolution-Debate-The-Descent-of-Man-and-The-Great-Apes

But do not that "evolution" is not some "philosophy" that encompasses Big Bang theory, big bang nucleosynthesis, galaxy creation, star and solar system formation and black hole theory, General Relativity, biochemistry, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and physical anthropology, and if you defeat one of them you've defeated all of them. I lament the fact that many human beings understand science so poorly. These are all completely distinct theories. They all have evidence which does not relate to one another and is mutually exclusive.

It's a fact that Neanderthals existed and that they were a distinct species from humans --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project. These things just are not up for debate anymore. Creationism isn't like how it was 200 years ago; in order for Creationism to be true, almost the whole of science would need to be false. Creationism in the manner presented by the Bible is provably an utter fabrication of human imagination. Whether or not you believe that this mandates that the Bible is false is another question of Biblical hermeneutics, but science has ruled: The creation story of the Bible is utterly and unconditionally false.

manc

April 9th, 2011, 12:19 AM

carty, I am trained in geology. I have read AIG. I can assure you it is total garbage, full of lies and nonsense. My father used to be a lay preacher. It was he that got me interested in geology as a kid.

the burrows in this article destroy the YEC 'theory'

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologiccolumn.htm

"Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated?"

This is about thousands of thin alternating beds of shale and sandstone in a place where the whole geological column is found.

I would read the thread if I were you. I and others posted a ton of stuff. I gave up because the last YECist refused to even contemplate the science, wouldnt try to understand it.

see also post 53 regarding unconformities. How does a load of uplift and erosion take place in the middle of a flood? It doesnt.

"God is not lying to us if we don't accept a plain reading of what He said."

But have you studied it like I have, or have you just read the claptrap in AIG written by non-scientists pretending to be scientists because they have no shame about being liars?

rcarty

May 16th, 2011, 06:54 PM

You are aware that how the planet Earth came into existence and what the Big Bang explains are two completely different things, right?

I was referring to the purely naturalistic explanations for the origins of both. I was referring to stellar evolution, which starts with the Big Bang (cosmic evolution).

Are you aware that Mike Riddle has absolutely zero formal training in any field of science, let alone cosmology or astronomy? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=46) With absolutely no credentials, I hardly see any reason to accept what his bare assertions.

From your link: "Mike holds a degree in mathematics and a graduate degree in education." Of course this means he has no degrees in astronomy, and you imply that his uneducated assertions are not supported by those who are trained in such things. If this is the case, please provide references, preferably on AiG, where ones like Dr. Jason Lisle, who is an astrophysicist, agree with you about Mike Riddle. Failing that, I suggest you address the assertions rather than attack the person.

In fact, I think I'd like to address some patent falsehoods:

Clearly, he doesn't know what he's talking about here; we observe supernova all the time:

Since 2000, professional and amateur astronomers find several hundreds of supernovae each year (572 in 2007, 261 in 2008, 390 in 2009). For example, the last supernova of 2005 was SN 2005nc, indicating that it was the 367th[nb 1] supernova found in 2005.[40][41]

Those are referring to the time when those supernovas have been discovered, not that they were recent supernovas. Mike was not saying they aren't finding supernovas, he was saying they haven't found any Type III supernovas yet. Those discoveries don't identify when the supernova happened.

Historical supernovae are known simply by the year they occurred: SN 185, SN 1006, SN 1054, SN 1572 (Tycho's Nova) and SN 1604 (Kepler's Star). Since 1885 the letter notation has been used, even if there was only one supernova discovered that year (e.g. SN 1885A, 1907A, etc.)—this last happened with SN 1947A. "SN", for SuperNova, is a standard prefix. Until 1987, two-letter designations were rarely needed; since 1988, however, they have been needed every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

Again, historic supernovas are referring to when they were observed, not when they occurred. Your linked article even says new ones haven't been observed in the Milky Way since 1604, yet it still asserts (in spite of them not being observed in the Milky Way) that they happen every 50 years or so.

All of these supernovas you are referring to are either Stage I (exploded only a few hundred years ago) or more likely Stage II (exploded a few hundred to about a million years ago), are they not? Have they found any Stage III (exploded more than a million years ago) supernovas yet? Your Wiki article doesn't even mention Type III supernovas.

His notion of "recently" is a bit off, as well. It should be noted that we can see supernovas from billions of years ago because we can only see "old photographs" (the light created when they were destroyed) of stars that are billions of lightyears away from us.

We use terms like "lightyears" because it's a very intuitive way of visualizing this. If an object is 1,000 lightyears away, it will take the light 1,000 years to travel to us. This means that the supernova occurred in 1011 AD, it would only have reached us this year.

Of course I understand the light distance term light-year and how that relates to the age of distant objects, as long as one assumes uniformitarian processes and rates of movement in the past.

That's not quite how it works. Most of the stars that have been created came from earlier in the universe when there was a lot more hydrogen to create stars, but it still happens now:

This is a picture of the Eagle Nebula, a portion of it that is called "The Pillars of Creation." The edges of the "pillars" have stars that are forming, we can see that the gas in the pillars are condensing due to gravity and new stars are being birthed.

Actually, they cannot see that the gas is condensing. They cannot see any stars forming. They can only see that there is a lot of gas and particles in that region, and assume that means new stars are being birthed - or at least will be some day. Calling it a stellar nursery does not mean it is a stellar nursery. To prove me wrong all you have to do is reference one star that they have observed being created since they've been observing that region of space.

Now more to the point: It's somewhat amusing that this lecturer states that supernovas are somehow bad, in some observational sense, for Big Bang theory (even though what he's suggesting is patently wrong and has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory). Observationally, it's because of supernovas that we know that the Big Bang Theory is true. A particular type of supernova (Type IA Supernovas) is used to determine the numerical accuracy of the Big Bang Theory. Type 1A supernovas have the wonderful property that they have a constant luminosity (luminosity does not change over spatial distances, it depends completely on the object), but the light that is sent from it undergoes redshift (directly correlated to distance, the wavelength decreases the farther light travels). Because type 1A supernovas are so prevalent, cosmologists have used them to look very far out into the universe (and therefore very far back in time) to determine where and when these supernovas happened, giving us a deep understanding of precisely how the universe is expandingback to early times after the Big Bang. This along with our strong understanding of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Redshift does not prove the Big Bang. It only proves the universe is expanding. Mike was only stating the amount of stage II and III supernovas do not match cosmological and stellar evolutionary predictions, and that they do match YEC predictions.

Speaking of looking at more distant galaxies and comparing them to closer ones, I know the claim is the spiral shape is not due to rotation but it's a function of a wave, but how does that fit with spiral galaxies we see edge-on which, due to the red/blueshift are clearly rotating? If the more distant ones are really billions of years old, why don't we see them as a series of circles instead of spirals?

I see you've been watching some Kent Hovind. No, scientific evidence has little to do with interpretations of this nature. Two scientists might disagree over the evidence of theory, but no scientist is confused over the basic foundations of their own discipline. This is why even 'scholars' like Michael Behe, who supposedly support "Intelligent design", still believe that man evolved from apes. He believes this because it's transparently true and obvious to anyone who's seen the evidence.

Actually I have already pointed out several of your interpretations of evidence in this post alone. Interpretation is a major part of it when we are dealing with past events. Even if we are able to perform experiments today which result in similar characteristics to something from the past that does not prove the result from the past had to have happened according to the conditions of our experiment.

I have actually seen a few Kent Hovind videos and read a little of what he has written, but I can't say I've seen anywhere in his material references to interpretation. It could be it's there and I don't remember it though. Regardless, your attempt here is to discredit the source and thus be able to discredit the assertion. Since interpretation of the evidence is obvious to anyone who is reasonably objective about it, your argument fails. I also see this as an attempt to attack the person and not address the argument.

This is a rather good post on ODN which shows literal evidence of evolution: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php/21665-Evolution-Debate-The-Descent-of-Man-and-The-Great-Apes

But do not that "evolution" is not some "philosophy" that encompasses Big Bang theory, big bang nucleosynthesis, galaxy creation, star and solar system formation and black hole theory, General Relativity, biochemistry, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and physical anthropology, and if you defeat one of them you've defeated all of them. I lament the fact that many human beings understand science so poorly. These are all completely distinct theories. They all have evidence which does not relate to one another and is mutually exclusive.

Their disciplines are not so independent as you assert. Do you not agree that all of those can be interpreted to support long ages and microbes to man evolution? This is the common thread that I refer to.

It's a fact that Neanderthals existed and that they were a distinct species from humans --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project. These things just are not up for debate anymore.

It is a fact that people with certain morphological characteristics which have been identified as Neanderthal lived in the past, I agree. The rest of what you say is based on your evolutionary interpretation of the evidence we have from the past about them.

Creationism isn't like how it was 200 years ago; in order for Creationism to be true, almost the whole of science would need to be false. Creationism in the manner presented by the Bible is provably an utter fabrication of human imagination. Whether or not you believe that this mandates that the Bible is false is another question of Biblical hermeneutics, but science has ruled: The creation story of the Bible is utterly and unconditionally false.

I agree creation and MME are mutually exclusive, however I disagree that the science itself would have to be proven false. I would agree the knowledge claimed from an evolutionary long ages presupposition would be false though.

rcarty

May 16th, 2011, 09:28 PM

carty, I am trained in geology. I have read AIG. I can assure you it is total garbage, full of lies and nonsense. My father used to be a lay preacher. It was he that got me interested in geology as a kid.

I understand that you would reject what AiG says if it doesn't fit with your evolutionary long ages presuppositions.

the burrows in this article destroy the YEC 'theory'

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologiccolumn.htm

"Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated?"

This is about thousands of thin alternating beds of shale and sandstone in a place where the whole geological column is found.

If the layers were really there for a long time, how is it the burrowing life didn't have enough time to remove all evidence of the layers themselves? That is, why do we see any layering at all? Bioturbation, through borrowing or whatever life action, would mix all those layers together very quickly.

I would read the thread if I were you. I and others posted a ton of stuff. I gave up because the last YECist refused to even contemplate the science, wouldnt try to understand it.

Seeing as you have recommended that whole article, I feel it is appropriate for me to respond to the whole article here, without you being able to claim I am making a strawman argument.

"Above this is a black shale. Shale, due to the very small particle size requires quiet, tranquil waters for deposition to take place. This is one of the unrecognized difficulties of flood geology. Every shale, which is approximately 46% of the geologic column, is by its existence, evidence for tranquil waters. "

This assumes each particle settled separately and did not clump together, as hydrology lab experimentation has shown.

"These can not be the flood deposits for a reason of heat. Each gram of carbonate.."

This assumes that the carbonate chemical reaction occurred all at once. It is not a problem if the deposition of carbonate happened quickly, it is only a problem if the carbonate formed quickly.

"..mudcracks from drying out of the layers.."

Cracks do not require drying out to occur. They do, of course occur when mud dries, but this is not the same as it being the only way they can occur.

"These are generally considered evaporitic and thus incompatible with deposition during a worldwide flood."

"Numerous erosional surfaces are found (Dunn, 1983, p. 79,85). Once again, hardly a result to be expected from the flood."

The global flood was not one single deposition. It was a series of erosional and depositional events of varying extent and intensity spanning more than a year. There were periods of time where evaporitic deposition could have occurred, just like there were periods of time where recently deposited layers were exposed, as evidenced by animal tracks.

"How can the preflood world be covered in dead crinoids and still have room for people and the dinosaurs?"

This argument refers to a layer about 3 inches thick, which is found in most parts of the world. I fail to see how a 3-inch layer would preclude all other life. Since the world is about 70% water now, that would mean there would only have to be the equivalent of less than 6 inches of crinoids in all the oceans for this to be possible, and of course that still wouldn't be clumped together, since the oceans today even are certainly deeper than 6 inches.

"Thirdly, the sands are cross-bedded in a fashion identical to modern desert dunes!"

Crossbedding also happens subaqueously under currents. The difference between aerial and subaqueous crossbedding is the angle of the slope, and the angle, for example on the Coconino Sandstone, matches subaqueous. The article doesn't detail what is unique about the Minnelusa formation.

".."chicken-wire" anhydrite only forms above 35 degree C.."

It was claimed earlier in this article that there would be too much heat, and that would be a problem for the Flood, yet now there is a claim that there wasn't enough heat, and that too was a problem for the Flood.

"..this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater."

The assumption is that the salt deposition had to have been due to evaporation. However, if this is the case, where did the salt come from originally? If it came from the ocean, how did it get into the ocean in the first place? Salt is carried into the ocean from rivers, which means it comes from the land. Therefore it cannot be assumed that this salt deposit had to have been from the ocean.

"The Jurassic Swift formation is predominantly shale in the lower part. Shale requires tranquil water for deposition. This shale has abundant belemnites, oysters and pelecypods."

Belemnites can be as large as 3 meters long, making it impossible for these index fossils to be found in a drill core. Oysters likewise, unless we are referring to immature specimens, cannot be contained within a drill core. Bivalves like the pelecypod could be found contained within a drill core, however.

"The upper Jurassic Continental Morrison formation is next. This is the bed with all the dinosaur bones.
...
Huge dinosaurs, like the multi-ton Diplodocus and Apatosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and smaller dinosaurs are found here."

Which dinosaurs do you think they could have exhumed within a drill core?

"Shark teeth and bones are found. A shark during its lifetime sheds numerous teeth which fall to the ocean floor to be buried.."

This implies that the shark tooth could only have been deposited if the water was available for the duration of the shark's lifespan, which is obviously fallacious. The water would only have needed to be there long enough for a shark tooth to fall.

"There is a 14- foot Portheus (fish) which apparently died after trying to digest a smaller 6-foot fish. Skulls of the giant marine lizard Tylosaurus was found."

Clearly these examples are not describing what was found within the drill core, thus this information here and later in the article listing these various layers as found in the drill cores are a result of interpreting whatever small amount of evidence was actually found in the drill core to represent these various layers.

"..Ore Lake, Michigan."
"..west Texas.."
"In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone.."
"The Hell Creek formation.." This is in Montana.

"You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 26 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are.."

Clearly, we did not see the whole column piled up in one place as evidenced from one drill hole, we see an interpretation of what little they could find in the drill hole cores as being those various layers. I investigated all these other locations previously, when someone else linked to a TalkOrigins page which has virtually identical information. (In fact, the wording in both is so much the same that one article clearly was largely a copy/paste of the other.) I did find some partial detail for a few layers for these other locations in the world, consistent with the creationist assertion that the complete geologic column is not found anywhere in the world. For most of those locations the only references I could find on the Internet were the many repetitions of this same list, all without supporting detail.

"The biggest single factor for how fast an object settles in a fluid is the size. The relevant physical law is Stoke's Law. The larger an object, the faster it falls."

That is not true. Fall rate is determined by the size, density and shape of an object. For example, a large parachute is going to fall in air or water much slower than a small metal bolt. A non-flat piece of sheet metal is going to fall in air or water slower than a metal ball of the same weight. A block of wood will float in water, whereas often an identical size and shape of steel with the same amount of air trapped in it will sink. Stoke's Law applies to spherical objects, which is fine for sedimentary particles, which are roughly spherical, but it very much doesn't apply for organisms, which is what this paragraph is referring to.

see also post 53 regarding unconformities. How does a load of uplift and erosion take place in the middle of a flood? It doesnt.

The global flood was a series of erosional and depositional events, as I said already in this post. It explains quite well the erosional surfaces found. However, such surfaces, being planar, cannot be explained from a uniformitarian, slow and steady, erosional process.

God is not lying to us if we don't accept a plain reading of what He said.
But have you studied it like I have, or have you just read the claptrap in AIG written by non-scientists pretending to be scientists because they have no shame about being liars?

I don't know how much you have studied the Bible; likewise you don't know how much I have studied it. You imply that I should take your word for it because (you imply) you have studied it more than I have. Thus this is obviously an argument from ignorance on your part. Apparently you also claim to have studied it more than everyone at AiG. The rest of what you say about AiG is your opinion.

MusicalProdigy

May 17th, 2011, 10:45 PM

I am a young Creationist AND a Christian.
Why is evolution false? Simple.

1. Scientists have admitted mathmatically that there is a small chance that evolution happened.

2. The Big Bang Theory is a topic I LOVE discussing. Okay, so what is the law of inertia? "that a object is rest stays in rest, an object in motion stays in motion" yeah, yeah, you know. So, the earth was a small atom and then a comet hits this atom and then BAM! the earth appears, the exact amount my miles away from the sun so we won't burn, and close enough so we won't freeze; has sufficent oxygen and seems to be PERFECT for humans. That seems like a lotta chance there. A chance that the earth won't burn us up or freeze us etc. like, what sense does that make? Like ohmigosh..

3. Evolution is simply a "faith", not a science. It takes more belief and acceptance(not facts and proof) to accept that evolution actually did happen. It is easier to believe that God created the world instead of guessing and juggling reality (that we came from monkeys, like OMG)

So there you have it. Hope this helps. Btw, Im 14 y/o.

GoldPhoenix

May 20th, 2011, 03:04 PM

I was referring to the purely naturalistic explanations for the origins of both. I was referring to stellar evolution, which starts with the Big Bang (cosmic evolution).

Theories of stellar accretion is true even if Big Bang is false. We've known for a good long time how planets are formed from the remnant matter around stars. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with Big Bang theory.

From your link: "Mike holds a degree in mathematics and a graduate degree in education." Of course this means he has no degrees in astronomy, and you imply that his uneducated assertions are not supported by those who are trained in such things. If this is the case, please provide references, preferably on AiG, where ones like Dr. Jason Lisle, who is an astrophysicist, agree with you about Mike Riddle. Failing that, I suggest you address the assertions rather than attack the person.

I'm not saying he's wrong because he lacks any credentials, I'm saying he's wrong because he actually is factually wrong. And, seriously, AiG? A more backwaters, anti-science website has never existed.

Contrary to popular belief, PhD scientists do not spend their time debunking every jackass that makes erroneous claims. They have far better things to do with their time --mainly, science.

Those are referring to the time when those supernovas have been discovered, not that they were recent supernovas. Mike was not saying they aren't finding supernovas, he was saying they haven't found any Type III supernovas yet. Those discoveries don't identify when the supernova happened.

Define precisely what you meant and then substantiate his claim. There does not exist a "Type III supernova" in the modern, accepted supernova taxonomy. Either he's using esoteric terminology or he's making something up. If it's the latter, then it'd make a lot of sense why scientists hadn't found a type III supernova.

As I've already explained, even if this were valid scientific terminology, it wouldn't matter because we've already corroborated the Big Bang with multiple different methods, including Type IA supernova (Which has the fortune of actually being proper scientific terminology).

Again, historic supernovas are referring to when they were observed, not when they occurred. Your linked article even says new ones haven't been observed in the Milky Way since 1604, yet it still asserts (in spite of them not being observed in the Milky Way) that they happen every 50 years or so.

You had to have willfully misread that article in order to have possibly come to that conclusion:

Supernova discoveries are reported to the International Astronomical Union's Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams, which sends out a circular with the name it assigns to it. The name is the year of discovery, immediately followed by a one or two-letter designation. The first 26 supernovae of the year are designated with a capital letter from A to Z. Afterward pairs of lower-case letters are used: aa, ab, and so on.[38] Since 2000, professional and amateur astronomers find several hundreds of supernovae each year (572 in 2007, 261 in 2008, 390 in 2009). For example, the last supernova of 2005 was SN 2005nc, indicating that it was the 367th[nb 1] supernova found in 2005.[39][40]

Historical supernovae are known simply by the year they occurred: SN 185, SN 1006, SN 1054, SN 1572 (Tycho's Nova) and SN 1604 (Kepler's Star). Since 1885 the letter notation has been used, even if there was only one supernova discovered that year (e.g. SN 1885A, 1907A, etc.)—this last happened with SN 1947A. "SN", for SuperNova, is a standard prefix. Until 1987, two-letter designations were rarely needed; since 1988, however, they have been needed every year.

(Emphasis mine)

That means we discover more than 26 every year. The "once every fifty years" almost certainly comes from an average of galaxies as large as the Milky Way that have been observed.

All of these supernovas you are referring to are either Stage I (exploded only a few hundred years ago) or more likely Stage II (exploded a few hundred to about a million years ago), are they not? Have they found any Stage III (exploded more than a million years ago) supernovas yet? Your Wiki article doesn't even mention Type III supernovas.

This is because Riddle is using his own made-up supernova taxonomy. This is probably related to the fact that he has no training in either astronomy or cosmology.

Actually, they cannot see that the gas is condensing. They cannot see any stars forming. They can only see that there is a lot of gas and particles in that region, and assume that means new stars are being birthed - or at least will be some day. Calling it a stellar nursery does not mean it is a stellar nursery. To prove me wrong all you have to do is reference one star that they have observed being created since they've been observing that region of space.

Sorry, cart, but you absolutely cannot insistent that a picture of a duck is actually a dog secretly dressed up in a duck outfit.

Do you know how we can understand what's going on out there when we see matter collapsing into itself? Because we understand gravity. That's how.

Redshift does not prove the Big Bang. It only proves the universe is expanding. Mike was only stating the amount of stage II and III supernovas do not match cosmological and stellar evolutionary predictions, and that they do match YEC predictions.

Redshift does corroborate the Big Bang, along with CMBR, and, frankly, by just looking at how the universe looked 14.5 billion years ago.

Speaking of looking at more distant galaxies and comparing them to closer ones, I know the claim is the spiral shape is not due to rotation but it's a function of a wave, but how does that fit with spiral galaxies we see edge-on which, due to the red/blueshift are clearly rotating? If the more distant ones are really billions of years old, why don't we see them as a series of circles instead of spirals?

You should stop taking astronomy lessons from Mike Riddle. The spiral shape does come from the galaxy's rotation, as well as it's distribution of mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxies

Actually I have already pointed out several of your interpretations of evidence in this post alone. Interpretation is a major part of it when we are dealing with past events. Even if we are able to perform experiments today which result in similar characteristics to something from the past that does not prove the result from the past had to have happened according to the conditions of our experiment.

Yes, interpretation is important. Especially a valid interpretation of the evidence, which YEC and ID have yet to do once in their entire history of lamely trying to insert religion into science.

Honestly, the Bible is wrong. The Bible is chalk full of factually errant garbage, from witchcraft and miracles to our universe's creation and the value of pi. Give it up.

Their disciplines are not so independent as you assert. Do you not agree that all of those can be interpreted to support long ages and microbes to man evolution? This is the common thread that I refer to.

Yes, cart, they are. Evolution was understood in the 1850's. Quantum chemistry and nuclear physics in the 1920's. Big Bang in the 1940's. They all were based on mutually exclusive evidence

It is a fact that people with certain morphological characteristics which have been identified as Neanderthal lived in the past, I agree. The rest of what you say is based on your evolutionary interpretation of the evidence we have from the past about them.

We have their DNA, cart, along with the third line of homo erectus's children, the Denisovans. This doesn't require anymore "interpretation" than a damn paternity test. They're not a member of our species, and their evolutionary history is demonstrably not the same as our own.

I agree creation and MME are mutually exclusive, however I disagree that the science itself would have to be proven false. I would agree the knowledge claimed from an evolutionary long ages presupposition would be false though.

The problem here is that you are scientifically illiterate and you do no understand that sweeping changes would have to be made to the whole of modern science.

From genetics to General Relativity, to radiation and chemistry, to almost all of particle physics and to all of cosmology. Every scientific field in the modern world would have all made huge, sweeping, systematic, and deeply related errors in reasoning or data collection that would essentially make the entirety of modern physics, chemistry, biology, and anthropology invalid. Given the insurmountable evidence that we have for these fields, probability would tend to dictate that the handful of bronze-age Jews were the ones that got it wrong.

Soren

May 20th, 2011, 05:04 PM

I am a young Creationist AND a Christian.
Why is evolution false? Simple.

1. Scientists have admitted mathmatically that there is a small chance that evolution happened.
Please support this.

Also, any particular arrangement of the universe has an extremely small chance. The fact that we happen to be living in one of these does not make it false.

2. The Big Bang Theory is a topic I LOVE discussing. Okay, so what is the law of inertia? "that a object is rest stays in rest, an object in motion stays in motion" yeah, yeah, you know. So, the earth was a small atomHuh? The Earth was a a small atom?
and then a comet hits this atom and then BAM! the earth appears, the exact amount my miles away from the sun so we won't burn, and close enough so we won't freeze; has sufficent oxygen and seems to be PERFECT for humans. That seems like a lotta chance there. A chance that the earth won't burn us up or freeze us etc. like, what sense does that make? Like ohmigosh..
Like ohmigosh...the Earth didn't change to fit humans, humans changed to fit the Earth.

Also, the development of the atmosphere, oxygen, temperature, water, etc. were not instantaneous. It took billions of years over the Earth's history to develop all of this.

3. Evolution is simply a "faith", not a science. It takes more belief and acceptance(not facts and proof) to accept that evolution actually did happen.Please support this.
It is easier to believe that God created the world instead of guessing and juggling reality (that we came from monkeys, like OMG)

Not really. I have seen evidence for the existence of evolution... Fossils. For God?...Nada.

MusicalProdigy

May 20th, 2011, 05:43 PM

Please support this.

Also, any particular arrangement of the universe has an extremely small chance. The fact that we happen to be living in one of these does not make it false.
Huh? The Earth was a a small atom?
Like ohmigosh...the Earth didn't change to fit humans, humans changed to fit the Earth.

Also, the development of the atmosphere, oxygen, temperature, water, etc. were not instantaneous. It took billions of years over the Earth's history to develop all of this.
Please support this.
Not really. I have seen evidence for the existence of evolution... Fossils. For God?...Nada.

That you are breathing right now is evidence that God exists, honey.

Soren

May 20th, 2011, 05:49 PM

That you are breathing right now is evidence that God exists, honey.

Really? Explain how, sweet-heart.

MusicalProdigy

May 20th, 2011, 08:54 PM

Really? Explain how, sweet-heart.

Okay. So, what is evolution? Evolution suppossedly is the evolving of different animals into one animal to another. So, where did the first animal who started these evolution "threads" come from? Evolutionists have not yet figured that out because they are doubting their "faith"
So let's say evolution is true. Where did these "threads" orignate? The only sutiable answer is "from non-living things" So how can an intelligent creature which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happen to develop from a non-living thing with no conscious whatsoever? That's right; it can't. Unless you believe that non-living thing HAVE a conscious and are capable of thinking and have an intellect knowledge themselves for living things to develop off of (which is as silly as saying that a dishrag has a brain)

Now what about the Earth? Did humans just POP UP on the Earth? Maybe. You're the evolutionist; you tell me. So, why is not the Earth spinning out of control this very minute? Why? Does the Earth have a conscious? Does the Earth know 'Oh, I have people on me and they need oxygen and warmth and I cannot stray to far from the sun or too close to it'? Is the Earth a living being? Of course not. So why has Earth not failed us yet if it is not conscious of what it is doing? Pure chance, or a Creator?

And you say humans became suited to the Earth.So I guess that our bodies were (luckily) in tune with the Earth and we needed warmth (which luckily the Earth provided) water (yep; got that too) food (baby you're in luck) and EVERYTHING ELSE.

How come humans were not created for harsh climates, like extremely cold or extremely hot? How come our body design and Earth's climate and design fit right in hand so we could live on Earth without complications? Was this all by chance? Did evolution do that? Hm, you tell me, evolutionist.

There is NO possible way that this was all by chance. Either you are saying that Earth is completly conscious of what she is doing and has rare, supernatural intellegence or there is a God out there holding this world together.

Any comments?

Soren

May 20th, 2011, 09:09 PM

Okay. So, what is evolution? Evolution suppossedly is the evolving of different animals into one animal to another.Meh, that's not a very good definition, but it will do.
So, where did the first animal who started these evolution "threads" come from? Evolutionists have not yet figured that out because they are doubting their "faith"
So let's say evolution is true. Where did these "threads" orignate? The only sutiable answer is "from non-living things" So how can an intelligent creature which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happen to develop from a non-living thing with no conscious whatsoever? That's right; it can't. You are utterly right, it can't.

But that is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that "an intelligent create which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happened to develop from a non-living thing with no conscious whatsoever." What people are saying is: "an intelligent create which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happened to slowly develop over a very large period of time from another animal which did not contain as much intelligence."
Assume "A" is the non living material that the first life came from, and humans are "Z".

The timeline of evolution didn't go like this

A -> Z

It went like
A -> B -> C -> D-> . . . Y -> Z.

Now what about the Earth? Did humans just POP UP on the Earth? Maybe. You're the evolutionist; you tell me.No. They slowly evolved. See above. (Do you know what the theory of evolution is?)
So, why is not the Earth spinning out of control this very minute? Why?Huh? Every other planet does this. Why would the Earth spin out of control? I really don't want to explain the physics to you as to why the Earth is spinning at a consistent basis and revolving around the sun.
Does the Earth have a conscious? Does the Earth know 'Oh, I have people on me and they need oxygen and warmth and I cannot stray to far from the sun or too close to it'?No. At first the atmosphere of Earth didn't have oxygen. Algaes and plants converted CO2 to oxygen though. Now after the oxygen has been present, other creatures which previously did not need it evolve and become dependent on it.

It's not like

Humans -> Oxygen is produced because it is needed

It is like
Oxygen is produced -> Animals evolve to become dependent to this oxygen.

And you say humans became suited to the Earth.So I guess that our bodies were (luckily) in tune with the Earth and we needed warmth (which luckily the Earth provided) water (yep; got that too) food (baby you're in luck) and EVERYTHING ELSE.Wait, what?
You assume that humans popped out of nowhere. Our bodies evolved to become in tune with the Earth. Our bodies became to need the warmth because it was already a constant in the environment.

When you travel to differing places in the Earth's climate the animals have evolved to fit the climate. The climate didn't evolve to fit the animals.

How come humans were not created for harsh climates, like extremely cold or extremely hot?Define extremely cold and extremely hot.

Hint: We only consider things to be these because we use the current Earths warmth as our reference point for medium.
Hm, you tell me, evolutionist.
Would you shut up? I am not the one calling myself a prodigy.

There is NO possible way that this was all by chance. Either you are saying that Earth is completly conscious of what she is doing and has rare, supernatural intellegence or there is a God out there holding this world together.

There is NO possible way you understand evolution.

MusicalProdigy

May 20th, 2011, 09:36 PM

Meh, that's not a very good definition, but it will do. You are utterly right, it can't.

But that is a strawman. Nobody is claiming that "an intelligent create which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happened to develop from a non-living thing with no conscious whatsoever." What people are saying is: "an intelligent create which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happened to slowly develop over a very large period of time from another animal which did not contain as much intelligence."
Assume "A" is the non living material that the first life came from, and humans are "Z".

The timeline of evolution didn't go like this

A -> Z

It went like
A -> B -> C -> D-> . . . Y -> Z.

No. They slowly evolved. See above. (Do you know what the theory of evolution is?) Huh? Every other planet does this. Why would the Earth spin out of control? I really don't want to explain the physics to you as to why the Earth is spinning at a consistent basis and revolving around the sun. No. At first the atmosphere of Earth didn't have oxygen. Algaes and plants converted CO2 to oxygen though. Now after the oxygen has been present, other creatures which previously did not need it evolve and become dependent on it.

It's not like

Humans -> Oxygen is produced because it is needed

It is like
Oxygen is produced -> Animals evolve to become dependent to this oxygen.

Wait, what?
You assume that humans popped out of nowhere. Our bodies evolved to become in tune with the Earth. Our bodies became to need the warmth because it was already a constant in the environment.

When you travel to differing places in the Earth's climate the animals have evolved to fit the climate. The climate didn't evolve to fit the animals.

Hint: We only consider things to be these because we use the current Earths warmth as our reference point for medium.
Would you shut up? I am not the one calling myself a prodigy.

EDIT: Before you get defensive (oops too late) I just called you evolutionist because that's the side you're debating;evolution. Hater..

There is NO possible way you understand evolution.

Okay, so if there is NO possible way you understand evolution, how do you 100% know it is true then?

OKay so you said oxygen produced (on its own I am assuming) and the animals got used to it. So why did oxygen just develop on its own. Why did it do that? And why do we have lungs. To breathe air, unless lungs evolved on their on.

Seriously, evolution takes more FAITH to believe than creation because creation is 10x more sensible. Evolution can NOT be experimenated through scientific research whatsoever.

So, humans. Humans were evolved from apes right? That's a monkey. So how exactly did a monkey's brain evolve to the intellect, intelligent figure humans are today. Can monkeys become doctors, lawyers? Evolutionist believe that we evoloved from animals. Animals have instincts but we have consciousness. So, if we developed from ANIMALS, how come we do not have instincts? They are our relatives, BTW. You are talking about a DRAMATIC change in sensiblity, common sense from a human to a monkey. How is that even possible? Is it possible?

Evolution cannot be tested because it is unsensible (not to mention the holes of circular reasoning; more on that later,). Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith once wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." That sums up my theory that evolution is a RELIGION of CHANCE instead of an actual science, spoken by an EVOLUTIONIST himself! Why believe in chance instead of being sure?

Soren

May 21st, 2011, 11:32 AM

Okay, so if there is NO possible way you understand evolution, how do you 100% know it is true then?
No that bit was directed at you. Evolution is understandable, I was just saying that, from what you've posted, it is obvious you do not understand what evolution is.
OKay so you said oxygen produced (on its own I am assuming) and the animals got used to it. So why did oxygen just develop on its own. Why did it do that?[/QUOTE]You don't need to ask the same question twice. Why do you ask the same question twice?

But anyways, no, I did not say this. I will repeat what I said

No. At first the atmosphere of Earth didn't have oxygen. Algaes and plants converted CO2 to oxygen though.

You see, according to evolutionary theory, the first life forms were not dependent on oxygen. Then more complex light forms such as algae developed photosynthesis and began converting CO2 to oxygen.

Seriously, evolution takes more FAITH to believe than creation because creation is 10x more sensible. Evolution can NOT be experimenated through scientific research whatsoever.What about the scientific research of fossils? Half ape, half humans ones.

So, humans. Humans were evolved from apes right? That's a monkey. So how exactly did a monkey's brain evolve to the intellect, intelligent figure humans are today.It took millions of years. Imagine a humans intellect as being 1.

1-> 1.0001 -> 1.0002

And every arrow represents a hundred generations.
Can monkeys become doctors, lawyers? Evolutionist believe that we evoloved from animals. This is an appeal to ridicule

Appeal to ridicule, also called appeal to mockery, the Horse Laugh,[1] or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. For example:
"If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and more massive the faster I go. That's crazy!" (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule that a human observer will not notice the effect at speeds far less than the speed of light.)
"Evolution is ridiculous! If evolution were true, that would mean that all the apes wouldn't be here any more, since they all would have evolved into humans!" (This is not implied by the theory of evolution, thus the argument is false.)
This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.
Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging one's credentials or maturity;
"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up."
The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.
Animals have instincts but we have consciousness. So, if we developed from ANIMALS, how come we do not have instincts? Huh? What do you mean by instincts? I am pretty sure I, as a human, have instinct. At birth I knew to breastfeed.

Evolution cannot be tested because it is unsensible (not to mention the holes of circular reasoning; more on that later,) *With bated breath*.
Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith once wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." Good for him. Richard Dawkins once said "“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.”

rockondon

May 22nd, 2011, 08:57 AM

OKay so you said oxygen produced (on its own I am assuming) and the animals got used to it. So why did oxygen just develop on its own. Why did it do that? And why do we have lungs. To breathe air, unless lungs evolved on their on. There was oxygen, it just wasn't in the atmosphere. Oxygen is very reactive and it readily binds to things - like rocks. Oxygen wasn't in the atmosphere until cyanobacteria evolved. These bacteria, which are basically algae, use photosynthesis to release oxygen into the atmosphere. Once oxygen was in the atmosphere, air-breathing organisms would have to be able to tolerate it in order to survive.

So I guess that our bodies were (luckily) in tune with the Earth and we needed warmth (which luckily the Earth provided) water (yep; got that too) food (baby you're in luck) and EVERYTHING ELSE. When you look at a mud puddle do you ask yourself how that mud got so lucky that it found a perfect-sized hole to accomodate it? No? Why not?
Or how about giant tube worms - these critters grow up to 8ft long, they live on the ocean floor, they never see daylight in their lifetimes, and they live near black smokers where they thrive in boiling hot temperatures and enjoy a diet that includes hydrogen sulfide (a deadly poison to nearly every other creature in existence). Do you ask yourself why the world is so perfectly suited for giant tube worms?

No, because life adapted to the environment, not the other way around.

Where did these "threads" orignate? The only sutiable answer is "from non-living things" So how can an intelligent creature which possesses extreme knowledge and clarity happen to develop from a non-living thing with no conscious whatsoever? This question is about abiogenesis, not evolution. If God created the first cell that wouldn't affect evolution at all, since evolution is what occurs AFTER life already got there.
But to answer your question, the first life was mostly likely a very simple, self-replicating molecule with, like you said, no intelligence or conscience.

So, humans. Humans were evolved from apes right?
Humans ARE apes. You have Carl Linnaeus to blame for this classification - he was a Christian creationist.

Evolution cannot be tested because it is unsensible
Evolution is tested every time someone digs a hole and looks at the fossils they find.

Seriously, evolution takes more FAITH to believe than creation because creation is 10x more sensible. Evolution can NOT be experimenated through scientific research whatsoever. Evolution has been experimented with countless times each day for decades. And it requires evidence and reasoned thinking, not faith.

Do you believe that the earth is a liar? The fossil record it contains tells quite the story. The oldest fossils, 3500 ma (million years ago) are simple prokaryotic cells. Next came more complex (eukaryotic) cells (2000 ma). The first multicellular animals were 670 ma. Shell bearing animals were 540 ma, the first vertebrates (simple fish) were 490ma, the first amphibians 350 ma, reptiles 310 ma, mammals 200 ma, nonhuman primates 60ma, earliest apes 25 ma, australopithecine human ancestors 4 ma, and modern humans around 150 000 years ago. If the ages I provided bother you then ignore them, but don't forget to consider that the fossil record is ordered from simple to increasingly complex. It shows that life has steadily changed and became more complex over time.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

Or...you can believe in a God that used His powers for creation, but He kept needing to use them. A spell for each animal, each bird, each fish, for floods, for people, for miracles, and numerous other interventions to keep the world functioning. He made abundant mistakes- animals with sightless eyes, flightless birds with wings, men with nipples (and mammary glands), whales with leg bones, etc. A God that killed people by the million. A God that demands that people love Him and threatens eternal torment. A god that deceives his followers by making the world look old, by arranging fossils from simple to complex, by creating biological similarities that match this fossil record, etc. That isn't sensible.

CliveStaples

May 22nd, 2011, 09:20 AM

*With baited breath*.

It's actually "bated breath". It comes from the same root as "abate," meaning to reduce, lessen, or remove.

Soren

May 22nd, 2011, 09:43 AM

It's actually "bated breath". It comes from the same root as "abate," meaning to reduce, lessen, or remove.

Ahh, you're right. What was I smoking when I wrote that? (I actually knew that and just made a mistake, but I guess there is a lot of confusion http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm)

SaigonSaddler

June 6th, 2011, 04:25 AM

evolution takes more FAITH to believe than creation because creation is 10x more sensible. Evolution can NOT be experimenated through scientific research whatsoever.

Evolution can be explained by the means of mutually supporting areas of science. It can also be seen in operation and predicted for by a knowledge of the forces of natural selection. Creationism is a faith based belief system that must suspend what we recognise as science in order to have functioned. No evidence of this process of creation happening has survived and no evidence of this can be seen today.

If all the knowledge of evolution was spontaneously lost, we would rediscover it again given enough time.

So, humans. Humans were evolved from apes right? That's a monkey. So how exactly did a monkey's brain evolve to the intellect, intelligent figure humans are today. Can monkeys become doctors, lawyers? Evolutionist believe that we evoloved from animals. Animals have instincts but we have consciousness. So, if we developed from ANIMALS, how come we do not have instincts? They are our relatives, BTW. You are talking about a DRAMATIC change in sensiblity, common sense from a human to a monkey. How is that even possible? Is it possible?

An ape is not a monkey but that is a semantic point. Humans do exhibit instincts, such as the adrenaline boost you feel when you are surprised by something, or examples such as the desire for sex or to eat and drink.
Chimps share over 98% of our DNA and exhibit very 'human' like characteristics, such as tool use, communication, mourning a death and other such 'high level' sensibilities.

Evolution cannot be tested because it is unsensible (not to mention the holes of circular reasoning; more on that later,). Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith once wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." That sums up my theory that evolution is a RELIGION of CHANCE instead of an actual science, spoken by an EVOLUTIONIST himself! Why believe in chance instead of being sure?

Personal opinion, to which you are entitled.

My conclusion, based on the overwheming weight of scientific evidence and ongoing observations in the real world, is that evolution is the best explanation of life on earth.

rcarty

July 4th, 2011, 10:19 PM

Evolution can be explained by the means of mutually supporting areas of science.

So can creation.

It can also be seen in operation..

This is the fallacy of equivocation. What we observe is change over time evolution, which is not disputed, but you are claiming that since we see change over time evolution we are also seeing microbes to man evolution, which is not the same thing.

.. and predicted for..

Creation science also makes predictions.

.. by a knowledge of the forces of natural selection.

Natural selection is a conservation force, not a creative force. It can only operate on traits available, it does not create those traits.

Creationism is a faith based belief system that must suspend what we recognise as science in order to have functioned.

Ah, yes, the old canard that creation science is not science. What has already been pointed out to you is that both creation and microbes to man evolution take faith. The only difference is that creationists admit this, and evolutionists deny that their position also takes faith.

No evidence of this process of creation happening has survived and no evidence of this can be seen today.

I disagree. It's the same evidence, the only difference is in the interpretation, and that difference is a result of differing starting assumptions or axioms.

If all the knowledge of evolution was spontaneously lost, we would rediscover it again given enough time.

Well, I agree with you on this one. Just as evolution has been around many times in the past (it was not new and unique to Darwin), if it were to die out today it would very likely be resurrected again in the future.

aMythbuster

July 4th, 2011, 11:32 PM

Natural selection is a conservation force, not a creative force. It can only operate on traits available, it does not create those traits.

Mutations provide the new traits. We have seen mutation give new traits. For example, there are now more resistant bacteria much to the dismay of many people's health.

rcarty

July 4th, 2011, 11:40 PM

Theories of stellar accretion is true even if Big Bang is false. We've known for a good long time how planets are formed from the remnant matter around stars. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with Big Bang theory.

What you means is theories of stellar evolution are considered to be true by you and others, not that they have been or can be proven true.

And, seriously, AiG? A more backwaters, anti-science website has never existed.

Still just your opinion.

Contrary to popular belief, PhD scientists do not spend their time debunking every jackass that makes erroneous claims. They have far better things to do with their time --mainly, science.

Are you referring to AiG PhDs in this regard? Are you asserting that no one at AiG ever does anything other than refute evolutionary claims? If so, at best this is an argument from ignorance. Let me point out that AiG has a peer-reviewed publication, and there are plenty of examples there of people doing something more just than refuting other people's claims. Your claim is still fallacious even if you are not referring specifically to AiG, since the whole idea of peer review is for scientists to check the work of other scientists.

Define precisely what you meant and then substantiate his claim. There does not exist a "Type III supernova" in the modern, accepted supernova taxonomy. Either he's using esoteric terminology or he's making something up. If it's the latter, then it'd make a lot of sense why scientists hadn't found a type III supernova.

Type III supernovas are ones older than a million years, as evidenced by their dispersion pattern, radiaton characteristic, etc. These links don't say they confirmed the object they're referring to is actually a Type III only that they think it might be.

You had to have willfully misread that article in order to have possibly come to that conclusion:

So all of those supernovas discovered, an average of more than 26 per year, were in the Milky Way?

Do you know how we can understand what's going on out there when we see matter collapsing into itself? Because we understand gravity. That's how.

Do you actually observe matter collapsing into itself, or do you see a lot of matter that might supposedly collapse into itself?

My understanding is they don't find more primitive galaxies the farther out they look. They find ones that look just like the ones farther in, including the sprial pattern.

You should stop taking astronomy lessons from Mike Riddle. The spiral shape does come from the galaxy's rotation, as well as it's distribution of mass.

That wasn't Mike Riddle talking about the spirals, it was an evolutionist trying to explain you the apparent spiral isn't an actual spiral, Occam's Razor notwithstanding. It's supposedly a linear wave artifact. Of course, that doesn't explain why the galaxies are rotating.

From genetics to General Relativity, to radiation and chemistry, to almost all of particle physics and to all of cosmology. Every scientific field in the modern world would have all made huge, sweeping, systematic, and deeply related errors in reasoning or data collection that would essentially make the entirety of modern physics, chemistry, biology, and anthropology invalid. Given the insurmountable evidence that we have for these fields, probability would tend to dictate that the handful of bronze-age Jews were the ones that got it wrong.

I agree it would make a shambles of much of these disciplines. Are you suggesting we should keep them, regardless of whether they are true or not, just because it would be too much work to change them?

Do you recognize that your reference to Bronze Age Jews is actually an evolutionary presupposition, so it would be begging the question to use that as support for an evolutionary conclusion?

Mutations provide the new traits. We have seen mutation give new traits. For example, there are now more resistant bacteria much to the dismay of many people's health.

Yes, and the genetic change which accomplished this was a broken ingestion pathway. That is, it was no longer to take in one of the chemicals it used for fuel, and also happened to be the pathway for the poison to enter the bacteria. Thus it was a new trait (to us at least) but it was a loss of function, since the bacteria both could not take in the poison nor take in a chemical for food. It was not new information in the DNA though, since it didn't add, it broke existing DNA.

aMythbuster

July 6th, 2011, 11:41 PM

Yes, and the genetic change which accomplished this was a broken ingestion pathway. That is, it was no longer to take in one of the chemicals it used for fuel, and also happened to be the pathway for the poison to enter the bacteria. Thus it was a new trait (to us at least) but it was a loss of function, since the bacteria both could not take in the poison nor take in a chemical for food. It was not new information in the DNA though, since it didn't add, it broke existing DNA.

That does not matter. What we want to show is how mutation creates new traits. A broken pathway still manifests a new trait. It is worth the bacteria sacrificing some fuel to avoid the poison at least in this new environment in which it is making its niche.

If you want new genes or proteins, here are some examples:

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.
Getting another phosphatase gene in order to less phosphate in the enviornment.

Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33
There are already 2 mutants which can hydrolyze lactose and lactulose, but to use galactosylarabinose there needs to be both mutations. So from just 1 of the 2 mutation sites, eventually there were some that had both and got a new enzyme one that hydrolyzed galactosylarabinose.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Going from single celled to multicellular life. Originally the Chlorella did not have multicellular capabilities, but then started colonizing.

rcarty

July 7th, 2011, 11:51 PM

That does not matter. What we want to show is how mutation creates new traits. A broken pathway still manifests a new trait. It is worth the bacteria sacrificing some fuel to avoid the poison at least in this new environment in which it is making its niche.

What matters is it's not an example of increased complexity, it's clearly a case of reduction of function of existing DNA. Therefore it's not an example of microbes to man evolution, which requires an increase in complexity.

If you want new genes or proteins, here are some examples:

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.
Getting another phosphatase gene in order to less phosphate in the enviornment.

Duplicating an existing gene is not an example of an increase in complexity either.

Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33
There are already 2 mutants which can hydrolyze lactose and lactulose, but to use galactosylarabinose there needs to be both mutations. So from just 1 of the 2 mutation sites, eventually there were some that had both and got a new enzyme one that hydrolyzed galactosylarabinose.

This appears to be similar to nylonase. It appears to be an example of the designed-in adaptability of the organism, not an example of random mutations as you assert. When they repeated the experiment, the very same change occurred. This strongly supports a previous ability, not random changes.

"..identical enzymes occurred repeatedly in replicate experiments, suggesting that selection for growth on novel substrates favored only a very few of the large number of possible amino acid replacements."

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Going from single celled to multicellular life. Originally the Chlorella did not have multicellular capabilities, but then started colonizing.

The mention I found of this does not state that they repeated the experiment in order to see if it would happen again, and if so, if the genetic change which caused it was different, ie., random, or the same. If you have more detail about this, then I'll happily check it out. Meanwhile this is quite inconclusive and so not a good example.

rockondon

July 7th, 2011, 11:52 PM

I understand that you would reject what AiG says if it doesn't fit with your evolutionary long ages presuppositions.
Ironically enough, AiG is inadvertantly a strong supporter of evolution. Including macroevolution.

Implicit in his complaint is probably the misunderstanding that suggests that all species were directly created by God in the manner that we see them today. This is not the case. Genesis tells us that God created kinds, not species. New species can develop from within the existing gene pool within a created kind. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/evolutionist-told-burn-in-hell

One definition involves change (presumably with a genetic basis) in a population over time. Given this definition, evolution has certainly taken place. Ironically, it is the creationist model that requires such changes to be able to occur relatively rapidly. There are a number of examples in the available literature that demonstrate rapid adaptive evolution when animals are introduced into a new environment or the environment changes. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/life-designed-to-adapt#fnMark_1_10_1

But I understand that you would reject what AiG says if it doesn't fit with your creationist dark age presuppositions.

rcarty

July 8th, 2011, 12:11 AM

Ironically enough, AiG is inadvertantly a strong supporter of evolution. Including macroevolution.

AiG does support change over time evolution, which you probably define as microevolution. Your examples here are variation within kinds, which is definitely not microbes to man evolution, or macroevolution as you call it here.

But I understand that you would reject what AiG says if it doesn't fit with your creationist dark age presuppositions.

How do you come to understand this?

rockondon

July 8th, 2011, 07:41 AM

AiG does support change over time evolution, which you probably define as microevolution. Your examples here are variation within kinds, which is definitely not microbes to man evolution, or macroevolution as you call it here.
Which I probably would NOT define as microevolution because that's not what it is. Microevolution occurs within a species, macroevolution is at or above the species level. AiG has supported speciation for years; in fact, I recall reading that during their desperate attempt to support the Noah's ark story as true, they not only had to accept that speciation (and therefore, macroevolution) occurs, but that it occurs way faster than honest scientists (ie, evolutionists) claim, in order to account for how few animals were able to fit on the ark with how many species have actually walked the earth. Its funny how their story changes over time - evolution does not occur....okay fine, evolution occurs but only a little bit (microevolution)...okay fine, the animals we see today have evolved but even though we clearly accept evolution now, we'll keep using weird names that have no clear meaning like "kinds" and "adaptive" this or that and whatnot.

I guess you could say AiG has evolved. Their position keeps changing. What remains the same though is that anyone who respects God enough to try to understand and appreciate His creation, will be hated by AiG and all other creationists. God only likes the ones who lie about His creation, apparently.

rcarty

July 8th, 2011, 09:02 AM

Which I probably would NOT define as microevolution because that's not what it is. Microevolution occurs within a species, macroevolution is at or above the species level.

This is why I avoid using micro- and macroevolution, because the definition changes according to what is needed to support the evolutionary position. If you want to disprove the creationist position, though, you need to provide examples of new kinds, not species. Kinds is a biblical term, not something arbitrary used to win a debate. It was kinds that God originally created, and commanded them to fill the earth "after their kind". It was kinds taken on the Ark. Kinds are roughly equivalent today to the evolutionary taxonomic designation of family. Baraminology is the scientific investigation into biblical kinds. Successful hybridization proves organisms are of the same kind. For example, camels and llamas, living on different continents and in the same dromedary family, can have offspring.

Macroevolution as you define it here is not the single common ancestor to current biodiversity evolution, and that makes this the fallacy of equivocation because that is what you imply.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement about my rejecting AiG under certain conditions.

Allocutus

July 9th, 2011, 01:47 AM

This is why I avoid using micro- and macroevolution, because the definition changes according to what is needed to support the evolutionary position. If you want to disprove the creationist position, though, you need to provide examples of new kinds, not species. Kinds is a biblical term, not something arbitrary used to win a debate. It was kinds that God originally created, and commanded them to fill the earth "after their kind". It was kinds taken on the Ark. Kinds are roughly equivalent today to the evolutionary taxonomic designation of family. Baraminology is the scientific investigation into biblical kinds. Successful hybridization proves organisms are of the same kind. For example, camels and llamas, living on different continents and in the same dromedary family, can have offspring.

And species (where applied to sexually reproducing animals) is defined as organisms that are able to have viable (able to reproduce) offspring. Members of the same Family (but different species) cannot give rise to a line of descending species. Camas (half camels / half llamas) cannot. Neither can the mule (a hybrid between horse and donkey). Therefore, when you refer to "kinds" you must be referring to species and claiming that all the speices were originally created by God (all in the same week). The only way new species can come into existence (other than being created by God in the beginning) is by evolution.

In the study of sexually reproducing organisms, where genetic material is shared through the process of reproduction, the ability of two organisms to interbreed and produce fertile offspring of both sexes is generally accepted as a simple indicator that the organisms share enough genes to be considered members of the same species. Thus a "species" is a group of interbreeding organisms. (Wiki on "species")

Also, the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are not terms used to support an evolutionary position. Rather, the terms describe different degrees of genetic change within a population. Very often, the terms are used by creationists who attempt to agree that the genetic traits within a population do change over time (no point denying that) but who are at pains to deny that, given enough time, such changes can amount to major genetic change (a position that's so illogical that it is impossible to sustain).

rcarty

July 9th, 2011, 07:41 AM

And species (where applied to sexually reproducing animals) is defined as organisms that are able to have viable (able to reproduce) offspring. Members of the same Family (but different species) cannot give rise to a line of descending species. Camas (half camels / half llamas) cannot.

It appears you have moved the goalposts to where the offspring must be themselves fertile in order to support microbes to man evolution. However, the supposed lack of fertility is typically the reason to declare a new species, but morphology alone is sometimes used. Therefore it is shown that not only is calling camels and llamas different species is incorrect on a fertility basis alone. It also means they cannot even be called different genera on fertility alone.

Neither can the mule (a hybrid between horse and donkey). Therefore, when you refer to "kinds" you must be referring to species and claiming that all the speices were originally created by God (all in the same week). The only way new species can come into existence (other than being created by God in the beginning) is by evolution.

Not all hybrids are fertile but some are so your argument is defeated. I have already given the specific example of camels and llamas hybridizing as proof of them being the same kind or baramin. If you want to also call them the same species then that is logical. If you want to reclassify the various organisms proven by baraminology research to be of the same kind as to also of the same taxonomic species, go right ahead. However, to claim the current evolutionary level of species must already be the same as biblical kind does not logically follow. This is because there are many examples of successful hybridization where the parents are of the same taxonomic family.

Also, the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are not terms used to support an evolutionary position. Rather, the terms describe different degrees of genetic change within a population. Very often, the terms are used by creationists who attempt to agree that the genetic traits within a population do change over time (no point denying that) but who are at pains to deny that, given enough time, such changes can amount to major genetic change (a position that's so illogical that it is impossible to sustain).

This is a strawman since I have given reasons why I do not use those terms. If you want to argue this point you need to go find creationists who do still use the terms and argue with them there.

As to the claim of major changes building up over time, that is certainly a logical conclusion to come to if you believe that new useful genetic information is being added in those cases where speciation is declared because of a loss of fertility. However, new traits like antibiotic resistance and moth color when examined in detail are not examples of new useful genetic information being added, they are a loss of genetic function, a breaking of existing code (in the case of the former example) and a result of natural selection only in the latter. In every case where a new trait has been the result of genetic change it has been found it has been existing genetic code being broken or removed altogether, not a result of new useful information. Thus the limit on it is how much existing genetic code can be broken and/or removed before the organism's offspring are no longer viable, and thus the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven.

pandion

July 9th, 2011, 09:44 AM

This is why I avoid using micro- and macroevolution, because the definition changes according to what is needed to support the evolutionary position.But it is the creationists that try to change the definition of macro v. micro evolution. Evolutionary biologists don't often use the terms but when they do the definition is pretty clear. Microevolution refers to changes below the level of species. Macroevolution refers to changes above the level of species. You have been confused because you probably have read too many creationist arguments that offer too many erroneous definitions.

If you want to disprove the creationist position, though, you need to provide examples of new kinds, not species.
But "kind" is a meaningless term. Define kind and give me an example of one that I might see today.

Kinds is a biblical term, not something arbitrary used to win a debate.
It is a meaningless term. No one has ever given a meaningful definition of the term.

It was kinds that God originally created, and commanded them to fill the earth "after their kind". It was kinds taken on the Ark. Kinds are roughly equivalent today to the evolutionary taxonomic designation of family.
So you are saying that Noah took two of Felidae kind aboard the ark and that all species of Felidae evolved from these two individuals? Are you aware that that would be 2 subfamilies, 15 genera, and 41 species of extant cats, plus at least another 29 extinct genera? Wow! All of that evolution in what was, at most, a few hundred years. We know for a fact that many modern species were around more than 3000 years ago.

And the case is worse for the Canidae. There are 3 subfamilies (1 extant), 3 extant tribes, 13 genera, and 36 species. Besides that, there are over 40 extinct genera of Canidae. Again, all of that in only a few years after the ark landed.

Baraminology is the scientific investigation into biblical kinds.
It's not scientific. It's pretty much ad hoc. If I'm wrong then please explain to me the hyperevolution of so many different genera and species, and why did that hyperevolution seem to stop several thousand years ago.

Successful hybridization proves organisms are of the same kind. For example, camels and llamas, living on different continents and in the same dromedary family, can have offspring.
See? Ad hoc. So can you explain the evolution of these species? Even the Camelidae are hard to believe as coming from a single pair. There are 5 extinct and 1 extant subfamilies. The extant subfamily contains 2 tribes and 3 genera with 6 extant and 4 extinct species. All in a few years after the ark landed! Amazing!

rcarty

July 10th, 2011, 11:50 AM

But it is the creationists that try to change the definition of macro v. micro evolution.

Not true. Creationists generally don't use these terms at all. Thus your argument continues to be a strawman.

Evolutionary biologists don't often use the terms but when they do the definition is pretty clear. Microevolution refers to changes below the level of species. Macroevolution refers to changes above the level of species. You have been confused because you probably have read too many creationist arguments that offer too many erroneous definitions.

I am not confused about the claims regardless of what terms you happen to have used here. The creationist position is change up to and including new genera has occurred in the last 4,500 years. This is evidenced by hybridization, such as the camel and llama as I already said. The creationist position is also that there never will be new kinds develop through change over time evolution, as those were all created in Genesis 1.

But "kind" is a meaningless term. Define kind and give me an example of one that I might see today.

I have already given the definition of 'kind' in this thread, two days ago. I have also given an example, camels and llamas. Since they can produce viable offspring they are proven to be of the same kind. The taxonomic designation for both of these is the dromedary family, showing that in this case as is true for most cases, kind is roughly equivalent to family.

It is a meaningless term. No one has ever given a meaningful definition of the term.

Ah, so now you're saying my definition is not meaningful. Do you then assert that hybridization of camels and llamas is not meaningful in terms of evolutionary taxonomic designations?

So you are saying that Noah took two of Felidae kind aboard the ark and that all species of Felidae evolved from these two individuals? Are you aware that that would be 2 subfamilies, 15 genera, and 41 species of extant cats, plus at least another 29 extinct genera? Wow! All of that evolution in what was, at most, a few hundred years. We know for a fact that many modern species were around more than 3000 years ago.

Yes, that is creationist claim. There are several examples of lions and tigers as well as others hybridizing, proving not only they are part of the same kind but also proving the evolutionary designation of them being different genera and species is not due to lack of inter-fertility and is only due to morphological and geographical differences.

As for your timeline, it is indeed expected that much of the present biodiversity occurred in the first few centuries after the Flood, during the repopulation of the earth.

And the case is worse for the Canidae. There are 3 subfamilies (1 extant), 3 extant tribes, 13 genera, and 36 species. Besides that, there are over 40 extinct genera of Canidae. Again, all of that in only a few years after the ark landed.

Again, we have many examples of wolves and domestic dogs interbreeding, proving they are of the same kind, and their designation as different species is due to morphological differences. Domestic dogs are actually a very good example of phenotypic plasticity, since men have bred a very wide variety in the last couple centuries. This too supports the creationist position, in spite of your apparent incredulity.

It's not scientific. It's pretty much ad hoc. If I'm wrong then please explain to me the hyperevolution of so many different genera and species, and why did that hyperevolution seem to stop several thousand years ago.

Is that what it takes in your opinion to make it not scientific: one objection on your part? Hyperevolution as you call it still continues today, as shown by dog breeding which I already mentioned. It is not so prevalent in the wild, and there are three reasons for this. One, there was radical climate change after the Flood, and this caused organisms to more rapidly adapt. Two, organisms right after the Flood were filling the whole earth. The rapid expansion allowed much greater variation within kinds. Three, over time organisms have become genetically less able to vary due to random mutations breaking existing code.

There are other modern examples of rapid evolutionary change, such as cecal valves in Pod Mrcaru lizards. It's heritable, so it is a genetic change. It happened in less than 6 generations, and since the lizards didn't starve to death it may have happened in the first generation of offspring.

Successful hybridization proves organisms are of the same kind. For example, camels and llamas, living on different continents and in the same dromedary family, can have offspring.

See? Ad hoc.

Please explain what is ad hoc about this example.

So can you explain the evolution of these species? Even the Camelidae are hard to believe as coming from a single pair. There are 5 extinct and 1 extant subfamilies. The extant subfamily contains 2 tribes and 3 genera with 6 extant and 4 extinct species. All in a few years after the ark landed! Amazing!

Yes, I do understand this is difficult for you since it goes against your beliefs about microbes to man evolution and long ages. I'll explain it in general terms, not in detail. The single pair of dromedary-kind on the Ark morphed over several generations as they spread out to various parts of the earth. Now, if you are referring to extinct examples from this family as seen in the geologic record as fossils, those likely were from before the Flood, since most fossils are from organisms buried during the Flood.

Allocutus

July 11th, 2011, 12:55 AM

It appears you have moved the goalposts to where the offspring must be themselves fertile in order to support microbes to man evolution.

No. What I did is to say that animals of the same Family but of different Species cannnot produce viable offspring (by definition). Hence where do we get all these species from? Obviously they must have evolved by speciation. Or been created all at the same time (or various times?) by God. This is in contrast to your suggestion (as I understand it) that God just created different families who then speciated by interbreeding. Or did I misunderstand you?

Evolution from microbes to all of today's species (I don't know why you just chose "man" as the final result; all contemporary species are at the end of the process, and there are millions, not just homo sapiens) is a different issue altogether. I was merely addressing your post.

However, the supposed lack of fertility is typically the reason to declare a new species, but morphology alone is sometimes used. Therefore it is shown that not only is calling camels and llamas different species is incorrect on a fertility basis alone. It also means they cannot even be called different genera on fertility alone.

There are many different ways to define a species. However, in the case of sexually reproducing animals, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the most widely used definition. And indeed, I would challenge you to show me any two separately classified species who can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I say you won't find any. How about that?

Not all hybrids are fertile but some are so your argument is defeated. I have already given the specific example of camels and llamas hybridizing as proof of them being the same kind or baramin.

Incorrect. My point was that camas (the hybrid between camel and llama) are not fertile. They cannot reproduce to give rise to new camas. My argument stands.

If you want to also call them the same species then that is logical. If you want to reclassify the various organisms proven by baraminology research to be of the same kind as to also of the same taxonomic species, go right ahead. However, to claim the current evolutionary level of species must already be the same as biblical kind does not logically follow. This is because there are many examples of successful hybridization where the parents are of the same taxonomic family.

As above, please present one example of animals of the same family but different species who can (without genetic engineering) reproduce and give birth to fertile offspring.

This is a strawman since I have given reasons why I do not use those terms. If you want to argue this point you need to go find creationists who do still use the terms and argue with them there.

This is not a strawman because I never suggested that you use that argument. What I did say is that you're incorrect in claiming that the micro/macro distinction is something used to support the theory of evolution by natural selection.

As to the claim of major changes building up over time, that is certainly a logical conclusion to come to if you believe that new useful genetic information is being added in those cases where speciation is declared because of a loss of fertility. However, new traits like antibiotic resistance and moth color when examined in detail are not examples of new useful genetic information being added, they are a loss of genetic function, a breaking of existing code (in the case of the former example) and a result of natural selection only in the latter.

Please support. Note that I'm asking for support from legitimate sources; experts. I'm not interested in what the editor of the Scienceagainstevolution website (who happens to be an electrician), or others like him, have to say on the matter. Please provide evidence of properly documented and peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude that all antibiotic resistances and colour changes are the results of loss of information.

In every case where a new trait has been the result of genetic change it has been found it has been existing genetic code being broken or removed altogether, not a result of new useful information. Thus the limit on it is how much existing genetic code can be broken and/or removed before the organism's offspring are no longer viable, and thus the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven.

As above, please support.

rcarty

July 11th, 2011, 01:59 AM

No. What I did is to say that animals of the same Family but of different Species cannnot produce viable offspring (by definition). Hence where do we get all these species from?

Speciation is primarily declared due to lack or inability to interpreed, yes, but it is not the only factor. Morphological differences such as Darwin's finches are called different species even though several of them have been observed interbreeding. Anyway, I don't see how you can deny the obvious evidence of viable offspring that have been produced.

Obviously they must have evolved by speciation.

I agree the great variety of modern species are a result of variation. The creationist position is they arose from the created kinds that were released from the Ark.

This is in contrast to your suggestion (as I understand it) that God just created different families who then speciated by interbreeding. Or did I misunderstand you?

Apparently there is some misunderstanding here, since what you were saying seem to me to be the same as what you thought I might have said, but the latter you seem to say is different.

Evolution from microbes to all of today's species (I don't know why you just chose "man" as the final result; all contemporary species are at the end of the process, and there are millions, not just homo sapiens) is a different issue altogether. I was merely addressing your post.

Sure, microbes to the current biodiversity works for me although it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.

There are many different ways to define a species. However, in the case of sexually reproducing animals, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the most widely used definition. And indeed, I would challenge you to show me any two separately classified species who can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I say you won't find any. How about that?

Darwin's finches. Wolves and domestic dogs. I can go one better: lions and tigers, of the same felidae family, not species, producing viable and in some cases fertile offspring. The liger is also twice the size and weight of it's parents. Camels and llamas are of the same dromedary family and can produce viable offspring. Zebras and horses too.

Incorrect. My point was that camas (the hybrid between camel and llama) are not fertile. They cannot reproduce to give rise to new camas. My argument stands.

I'm not sure whose definition you are using here. The baraminology requirement is viable offspring, not fertile, in order to declare two organisms proven to be of the same baramin or kind. "However, fertility of the offspring has no bearing on the kind designation."

As above, please present one example of animals of the same family but different species who can (without genetic engineering) reproduce and give birth to fertile offspring.

With ligers and tigons "female hybrids are typically fertile while male hybrids are not."

"Many times the hybrids are infertile due to an uneven chromosome number that affects the production of eggs and sperm. However, this is not always the case, as even some mules (horse + donkey) have been known to reproduce."

"All are considered “infertile” due to uneven chromosome numbers, but fertility has been observed in some cases."

"The wolphin is fertile."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins

As to the claim of major changes building up over time, that is certainly a logical conclusion to come to if you believe that new useful genetic information is being added in those cases where speciation is declared because of a loss of fertility. However, new traits like antibiotic resistance and moth color when examined in detail are not examples of new useful genetic information being added, they are a loss of genetic function, a breaking of existing code (in the case of the former example) and a result of natural selection only in the latter.

Please support. Note that I'm asking for support from legitimate sources; experts. I'm not interested in what the editor of the Scienceagainstevolution website (who happens to be an electrician), or others like him, have to say on the matter. Please provide evidence of properly documented and peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude that all antibiotic resistances and colour changes are the results of loss of information.

That is the genetic fallacy. Just because a source does not fit within your claimed criteria does not mean the evidence or argument is invalid.

"Antibiotic resistance of bacteria only leads to a loss of functional systems. Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

"In every case where a new trait has been the result of genetic change it has been found it has been existing genetic code being broken or removed altogether, not a result of new useful information. Thus the limit on it is how much existing genetic code can be broken and/or removed before the organism's offspring are no longer viable, and thus the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven."

As above, please support.

"Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/genetics

Allocutus

July 11th, 2011, 04:07 AM

Speciation is primarily declared due to lack or inability to interpreed, yes, but it is not the only factor. Morphological differences such as Darwin's finches are called different species even though several of them have been observed interbreeding. Anyway, I don't see how you can deny the obvious evidence of viable offspring that have been produced.

Yes, I do have to retract what I said before. Having read up more on the subject, I have to concede that inter-species hybrids do occasionally produce viable offspring. However, it is said to be very rare.

I agree the great variety of modern species are a result of variation. The creationist position is they arose from the created kinds that were released from the Ark.

How does that variation take place?

Also, if all the animlas were created at the same time, how do you explain the complete absence of kangaroo fossils in Asia or of penguin fossils in the Middle East?

Also, how do you explain the neat stratification of found fossils? How come not a single monkey or elephant in the precambrean or the jurassic?

Apparently there is some misunderstanding here, since what you were saying seem to me to be the same as what you thought I might have said, but the latter you seem to say is different.

Right.

Sure, microbes to the current biodiversity works for me although it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.

Right. But where are we going with this line of discussion?

Darwin's finches. Wolves and domestic dogs. I can go one better: lions and tigers, of the same felidae family, not species, producing viable and in some cases fertile offspring. The liger is also twice the size and weight of it's parents. Camels and llamas are of the same dromedary family and can produce viable offspring. Zebras and horses too.

Well, dogs and wolves are actually the same species (Cannis lupus). Other than that, the issue is moot as I have agreed (above) that there are instances (albeit few) of animals of different species giving rise to viable offspring.

I'm not sure whose definition you are using here. The baraminology requirement is viable offspring, not fertile, in order to declare two organisms proven to be of the same baramin or kind. "However, fertility of the offspring has no bearing on the kind designation."

Well I don't really understand where you are going with this issue about different "kinds" as opposed to different "species". I guess I never understood it to begin with. I should have asked first, instead of opening my big mouth.

That is the genetic fallacy. Just because a source does not fit within your claimed criteria does not mean the evidence or argument is invalid.

No. I insist that you use well qualified sources. Quoting a non-qualified opinion in a debate is a fallacy; Appeal to Authority.

As it turns out, you quote somebody who happens to be a biologist. That said, she plainly misunderstands evolution, as I will show below.

"Antibiotic resistance of bacteria only leads to a loss of functional systems. Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

The problem with the above is that "functional system" is a meaningless term when it comes to evolution. Evolution doesn't have a goal. It doesn't have a plan.

The above quote is part of Dr Purdom's response to Dr Lenski's experiment with E. Coli.

Purdom claims that in Lenski's experimentation has demonstrated that bacteria have lost certain positive traits, for example their ability to metabolise particular sugars see answeringensis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye)on this). And that's fine! You see, Lenski's bacteria are doing very well. They are adapting to their ever-changing enviroment and successfully surviving in a 20 year long experiment. They are not likely to retain an ability that they do not need. And it's difficult to argue that the ability they have lost is an ability they actually need; they are surviving without it! Natural selection at work.

Dr Purdom appears to misunderstand the very basics of evolution. She claims that mutations result in the degradation of "functional systems". But the entire point is that a system is a "functional system" so long as it assists the organism in passing on its genes. Systems that are no longer helpful (due to changing environment) are no longer "functional systems". In the example of bacteria, immunity from antibiotics is a type of "functional system" because it assists the bacteria in surviving a present threat. At the same time, the ability to digest certain sugars is not a "functional system" because the bacteria "happily" survive despite having lost that ability.

"In every case where a new trait has been the result of genetic change it has been found it has been existing genetic code being broken or removed altogether, not a result of new useful information. Thus the limit on it is how much existing genetic code can be broken and/or removed before the organism's offspring are no longer viable, and thus the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven."

Well, that is plainly wrong. Even if every single observation of a new trait (observed at a mollecular level) has involved a breakdown or reduction in genetic code, that in no way means that "the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven". It simply means that in the very very very short period of time that we have in fact been observing the DNA, nobody has seen a trait change that goes in the other direction. Let's keep in mind that positive mutations are (necessarily) very rare. One would expect that mutations that add information (if they do exist) are even more rare. Can you see how dishonest the statement you quote is?

Scientists are familiar with a number of types of mutations, some of which do add information. For instance, insertion mutations. These mutations add additional DNA. They generally result in non-functional protein. And that's exactly what you'd expect. Since mutations are random, we must expect them to be (in an overwhelming majority of cases) "harmful".

Mutations that result in the addition of extra DNA are called insertions. Insertions can also cause frameshift mutations, and general result in a nonfunctional protein. (SOURCE (http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml)). At the same time evolution poses no intelligent design. There is no law that every mutation must be harmful. Therefore, it is of course expected that some tiny majority of them will in fact be beneficial. And it is those traits that are favoured by natural selection.

Studies in flies (Sawyer at al) have found that about 95% of mutations are harmful while the remaining mutations are either neutral or slightly beneficial.

Source (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6504):
Our analysis suggests that ≈95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is ≈70%.

"Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model.

And again, that's fine. There's no suggestion that the incidence of beneficial mutations in flies has to be greater than 1 in 3,000. Again, the vast majority of mutations would be expected to be neutral or harmful. And again, if a harmful or neutral mutation is possible, a beneficial mutation is also possible (although much less likely in any given instant). That is because there's no magic spirit (according to Evolution) that presides over the process to ensure that no beneficial mutations occur.

One example of a beneficial mutation (in humans) results in a greater immunity to HIV, as described below:

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[41] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[42] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[43] (see wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-3))

And here's a conclusion reached by Lenski (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/302/abstract)in his E. coli studies:

The 1-bp insertion in the BoxG1 region near glmUS was demonstrably beneficial in the environment in which it arose. The absence of similar mutations in the other evolved populations suggests that they substituted other mutations that rendered this particular mutation unimportant.

Purdom claims that what Lenski calls "mutations" is really just reactivation of pre-existing genes. It appears that she is engaging in top-to-bottom reasoning, starting with the assumption that mutations always have to result in some loss of some functionality. But where does that come from? It would be interesting to read Lenski's entire paper and see how he concludes that the changes were in fact mutations.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Bravo! And often that means having slightly longer legs (and run faster in predator-infested territory) or slightly shorter legs (and less likely to break in an area where predation is less rife) and therefore live longer and leave more offspring who carry the same genetic trait. I think we're on common ground here.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful.

Indeed! Now imagine moving a flying population to a more windy area. Or just a climate change in a particular area.

The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain.

Oh but insertion mutations are known to happen. Sure, they are most likely to be harmful. But again, we expect the vast majority of random mutations to be harmful. And of course if a mutation that's harmful or neutral is possible, so is a mutation that is in fact beneficial. And this may well be an insertion mutation. Or a neutral mutation (previously inserted) can be transposed to give a beneficial effect.

rcarty

July 11th, 2011, 03:11 PM

I agree the great variety of modern species are a result of variation. The creationist position is they arose from the created kinds that were released from the Ark.

How does that variation take place?

Rapid adaptation, or phenotypic plasticity, is based on the premise that there was greater genetic variability available in ancient organisms than is available today. This conclusion is supported by observation of loss of variation in modern organisms. Dog breeding is a good example of this, showing that traits become predominant in a population because other traits are no longer available.

Also, if all the animlas were created at the same time, how do you explain the complete absence of kangaroo fossils in Asia or of penguin fossils in the Middle East?

Your assumption is that the morphological characteristics of modern kangaroos developed before they came to Australia. What do you base this on? We are also talking about no fossils left after the Flood, yet the creationist position is that fossils in the geologic record are mostly from the Flood, not after so it is a strawman. There are historical accounts of lions in the middle east (i.e., after the Flood), yet there are none there today and there are no fossils. There used to be millions of buffalo in North America (again after the Flood), yet there are no fossils of them either.

Also, how do you explain the neat stratification of found fossils?

The slight amount of order in the geologic record is well explained by habitat, shape and density, mobility, and intelligence of the organisms buried.

How come not a single monkey or elephant in the precambrean..

The first organisms laid down in the Flood, in the precambrian/cambrian, were ocean-dwelling. Thus we would not expect to see land animals there.

.. or the jurassic?

The majority of the organisms found in the Jurassic are still marine animals. The next most common organism is plants. The few land animals found reflect the habitat, etc. of the organisms as per the list I gave. We would also not expect to see modern organisms such as monkeys or elephants, we would expect to see their ancestral kind. The ancestral kind of elephant is represented in the geologic record, in mammoths and such. Monkeys have the ability to grasp, and so would likely have held onto floating debris just like humans, and would only be seen in uppermost layers if at all.

Right. But where are we going with this line of discussion?

I dunno. You were the one who started it.

Well, dogs and wolves are actually the same species (Cannis lupus). Other than that, the issue is moot as I have agreed (above) that there are instances (albeit few) of animals of different species giving rise to viable offspring.

Ok, that's fine with me, and I'll happily pass on your decision on this the next time some other evolutionist claims it's a big deal. So this means you're fine with rapid speciation?

Well I don't really understand where you are going with this issue about different "kinds" as opposed to different "species". I guess I never understood it to begin with. I should have asked first, instead of opening my big mouth.

Generally the assertion I encounter is that speciation proves "microbes to the current biodiversity evolution", and disproves the creationist position.

No. I insist that you use well qualified sources. Quoting a non-qualified opinion in a debate is a fallacy; Appeal to Authority.

How about you stick to showing how the argument itself is wrong.

The problem with the above is that "functional system" is a meaningless term when it comes to evolution. Evolution doesn't have a goal. It doesn't have a plan.

Of course, the standard position that microbes to the current biodiversity evolution is undirected, because of course if it was directed then there would have to be a director. Thus the position is shown to be a philosophical position. In spite of this, though, the assertion is that there has been a trend over time, from the necessarily simple first life to the currently complex. There is the assertion that there is a trend toward the 'more fit'. This is exactly the assertion with antibiotic resistance, and why it is used as an example of microbes to the current biodiversity evolution in action. That is why creationists point out that the change in the organisms which give them antibiotic resistance is acheived by breaking the existing functionality, not by adding some new, useful genetic information.

Purdom claims that in Lenski's experimentation has demonstrated that bacteria have lost certain positive traits, for example their ability to metabolise particular sugars see answeringensis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/a-poke-in-the-eye)on this). And that's fine! You see, Lenski's bacteria are doing very well. They are adapting to their ever-changing enviroment and successfully surviving in a 20 year long experiment. They are not likely to retain an ability that they do not need. And it's difficult to argue that the ability they have lost is an ability they actually need; they are surviving without it! Natural selection at work.

They are surviving in an artificial environment in the lab. Tests prove that non-antibiotic resistant bacteria quickly overtake the mutated bacteria when both are present and the antibiotic is not present.

Well, that is plainly wrong. Even if every single observation of a new trait (observed at a mollecular level) has involved a breakdown or reduction in genetic code, that in no way means that "the evolutionary assumption of increased complexity through random mutations is disproven". It simply means that in the very very very short period of time that we have in fact been observing the DNA, nobody has seen a trait change that goes in the other direction. Let's keep in mind that positive mutations are (necessarily) very rare. One would expect that mutations that add information (if they do exist) are even more rare. Can you see how dishonest the statement you quote is?

If this were the case, then why are evolutionists claiming these are examples of microbes to the current biodiversity evolution? So, really you're saying creationists cannot rebut the assertions because that's dishonest, but it's ok for the evolutionist to assert it in the first place?

Scientists are familiar with a number of types of mutations, some of which do add information. For instance, insertion mutations. These mutations add additional DNA. They generally result in non-functional protein. And that's exactly what you'd expect. Since mutations are random, we must expect them to be (in an overwhelming majority of cases) "harmful".

The assertion is that eventually, if you add up enough broken pieces you will have something good come from it. That's like the fellow who was losing money on each sale but figured he'd make it up in volume.

Mutations that result in the addition of extra DNA are called insertions. Insertions can also cause frameshift mutations, and general result in a nonfunctional protein.[/COLOR][/I] (SOURCE (http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml)). At the same time evolution poses no intelligent design. There is no law that every mutation must be harmful. Therefore, it is of course expected that some tiny majority of them will in fact be beneficial. And it is those traits that are favoured by natural selection.

First, observation shows that the vast majority of random mutations are neutral, and of the few that are not, the rest that are observed are harmful. Although it is expected that random change can bring about a beneficial change, it has not been observed. People who work in this field generally do not even include in their results charts a beneficial mutation section. Beneficial genetic change as a result of random mutations goes against observed entropic patterns and also goes against fundamental cause and effect scientific principles. Entropy shows us random changes reduce the complexity, not increase it. Cause and effect states that the cause must be greater than the effect. Thus randomness cannot be the cause of something less random.

Studies in flies (Sawyer at al) have found that about 95% of mutations are harmful while the remaining mutations are either neutral or slightly beneficial.

I guess that depends on how you define beneficial. If you mean additional wings instead of stabilizers, a common claim, then you define it as no longer being able to fly because the additional wings have no flight muscles. If there are other specifics you'd like to discuss please post them.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[41] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[42] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[43] (see wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-3))

It's a deletion. Your quote even says that. Thus it is not an example of increased complexity due to an increase in genetic information.

Purdom claims that what Lenski calls "mutations" is really just reactivation of pre-existing genes. It appears that she is engaging in top-to-bottom reasoning, starting with the assumption that mutations always have to result in some loss of some functionality. But where does that come from? It would be interesting to read Lenski's entire paper and see how he concludes that the changes were in fact mutations.

If Lenski's crew wants to prove the mutations are random they need to run tests to show the same mutation does not develop each time. Can you provide examples of such tests done by them, or have they simply assumed it's random?

Bravo! And often that means having slightly longer legs (and run faster in predator-infested territory) or slightly shorter legs (and less likely to break in an area where predation is less rife) and therefore live longer and leave more offspring who carry the same genetic trait. I think we're on common ground here.

Show me examples of longer legs, etc. coming about by random mutations. Cecal valves in Pod Mrcaru lizards was a beneficial change, and resulted in a new (for that species) trait, but it happened in less than 6 generations, too fast for microbes to current biodiversity evolution as you have asserted. They did a genetic comparison with the parent population and could not find any difference, yet hatchlings have the cecal valve so it is heritable and thus must be accompanied by a genetic change. Likely the information needed to make cecal valves was already present, and all it needed was the right environmental stimulus (a change in diet) to switch it on.

Indeed! Now imagine moving a flying population to a more windy area. Or just a climate change in a particular area.

And when genetic change causes flightless beetles, are they still beetles, or are they a new genera, family, order, etc.? If they are still beetles, then you have failed to show an example of microbes to current biodiversity evolution.

chadn737

July 12th, 2011, 02:08 PM

rcarty, have you ever heard of gene duplication, polyploidy, etc? There are well established and understood mechanisms by which genetic information does increase. There are also examples of these newly duplicated genes taking on novel functions, different from the parental gene. For example there are two isotypes of the enzyme GDH, GLUD1 and GLUD2. Sequence analysis shows that GLUD2 originated due to a retrotransposition (resulting in a duplicate copy) of GLUD1. However, GLUD2 has different expression patterns than GLUD1. GLUD1 is expressed in most tissues, whereas GLUD2 is expressed almost exclusively in the Brain, where it has a distinctive function.

Birth and adaptive evolution of a hominoid gene that supports high neurotransmitter flux

Rapid adaptation, or phenotypic plasticity, is based on the premise that there was greater genetic variability available in ancient organisms than is available today. This conclusion is supported by observation of loss of variation in modern organisms. Dog breeding is a good example of this, showing that traits become predominant in a population because other traits are no longer available.

Comparison of the mitochondrial genomes shows that dogs have distinct sequences that are not found in Grey Wolves (the parent species of the domestic dog). This means that dogs have accumulated new variation since domestication.

Of course, the standard position that microbes to the current biodiversity evolution is undirected, because of course if it was directed then there would have to be a director. Thus the position is shown to be a philosophical position. In spite of this, though, the assertion is that there has been a trend over time, from the necessarily simple first life to the currently complex. There is the assertion that there is a trend toward the 'more fit'. This is exactly the assertion with antibiotic resistance, and why it is used as an example of microbes to the current biodiversity evolution in action. That is why creationists point out that the change in the organisms which give them antibiotic resistance is acheived by breaking the existing functionality, not by adding some new, useful genetic information.

There are examples of gain of function mutations that confer resistance. Furthermore, there are examples of such mutations in more complex organisms, such as plants. For example a mutation in the PRD9 gene of Arabidopsis, causes the protein to be stabilized, while retaining function. The stabilized protein has increased activity, giving the plant an increased herbicide resistance.

The slight amount of order in the geologic record is well explained by habitat, shape and density, mobility, and intelligence of the organisms buried.

Give specific examples. How does the mobility, shape, habitat, denisty, and intelligence of fossils of mollusks on top of mountains explain the geological record?

rockondon

July 13th, 2011, 09:56 PM

Rapid adaptation, or phenotypic plasticity, is based on the premise that there was greater genetic variability available in ancient organisms than is available today. This conclusion is supported by observation of loss of variation in modern organisms. Dog breeding is a good example of this, showing that traits become predominant in a population because other traits are no longer available. Lets pretend for a moment that what you are saying is true - that there was more genetic variability in ancient organisms and that genetic material has been decreasing ever since.
Lets look at the fossil record. Here is a pic from an anti-evolution, creationist website (http://www.calvaryu.org/ministry/creation/igeologycolumn.html).
http://www.calvaryu.org/ministry/creation/images/geologiccolumnanimals.jpg
What it shows is that life has been steadily increasing in complexity over time.
The deepest layers, which therefore holds the oldest creatures and thus, the ones with the most genetic material, were simple prokaryotic cells. After they supposedly lost genetic material, these simple cells became more complex (eukaryotic cells). After those cells lost genetic material, this led to simple animals, then shell-bearing animals, then fish, then amphibians, and so on up to the extraordinarily complex creatures we see today. According to the rcarty theory, when you are rife with genetic information you are a simple cell, and when you most of that information you become a highly complex mammal.
Now ask yourself if that makes sense.

The slight amount of order in the geologic record is well explained by habitat, shape and density, mobility, and intelligence of the organisms buried. This lie is so obvious that even creationists disagree with it, as evidenced by the picture above.

Also, a catastrophic flood would not sort very much. It would jumble most things together. And even if it did, hydrologic sorting is not what we see in the fossil record. We often see course sediment above fine sediment, dense creatures in upper strata, and buoyant creatures in lower strata. When you look at one stratigraphic layer and look at the millions of fossils pulled out of it and you find that there are large dense creatures, small buoyant creatures, and various other sized and shaped creatures all confined to that one layer worldwide, the idea of hydrological sorting starts looking pretty silly.

yet the creationist position is that fossils in the geologic record are mostly from the Flood,
Noah's flood. Lets look at that story.
Most theologians I read about feel that Noah's flood happened around 2349BC.
Its interesting though that Egyptian histories have been written since about 1,000 years before Noah's flood and continued throughout. Personally, if I was 5 miles underwater I would take a break from writing but not them - they kept writing their histories as though nothing happened - now that`s dedication. In fact they were so tough that they didn`t even bother to mention the global flood - not even a note like "we're 5 miles underwater but our corpses are still writing, its a little humid out but nothing worth mentioning" or something like that.

I`d also like to congratulate two other cultures, Sumer and Indus valley, for also writing their histories throughout the global flood as though nothing even happened.

Then there's the other stuff like how the animals couldn't fit, they couldn't eat (did Noah bring 200lbs of leafy vegetables for only the elephants and cast a magic spell to keep it edible for the year or so they were on sea?), did the koala bears magically reach the ocean and fly over to the middle east?, how about the arctic creatures - did they enjoy the hot sun? Saltwater and freshwater fish living in the same body of water? - I don't think so. Did the animals with specific dietary and environmental needs have their habitat board the ark as well? How did marsupials get off the ark in the middle east and wind up only in australia?

rcarty

July 14th, 2011, 01:00 AM

Here is a pic from an anti-evolution, creationist website.

This amounts to a strawman, since creationists obviously do not agree with microbes to man evolution. Perhaps you could post the link to the page where you got that picture from?

The deepest layers, which therefore holds the oldest creatures and thus, the ones with the most genetic material, were simple prokaryotic cells...

That is an evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record. As such, it is begging the question to use it as proof that the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record is correct.

The lowest layer, the precambrian, would be the first layer laid down by the Flood. As such it would be comprised almost exclusively of deep-sea organisms which were not able to avoid being buried. The next layer, the cambrian, has all major phyla present in it, disproving right there your single-common ancestor to current biodiversity interpretation of the geologic record.

Also, a catastrophic flood would not sort very much. It would jumble most things together. And even if it did, hydrologic sorting is not what we see in the fossil record.

This is either ignorance on your part or the fallacy of equivocation. The biblical flood was not one single deposition.

We often see course sediment above fine sediment..

Yes, and each of those layers are well sorted into those coarse or fine particles, which is the actual creationist position regarding hydrologic sorting.

Strawman. I did not say that organism deposition was purely a result of density. You quoted me in your post here that it was a result of several factors.

Most theologians I read about feel that Noah's flood happened around 2349BC.
Its interesting though that Egyptian histories have been written since about 1,000 years before Noah's flood and continued throughout.

You are referring to the "conventional chronology" for Egypt, which is a 20th century invention. That is referring to the standard or sequential rule rather than concurrent rule, which has been shown to be incorrect. In fact it was known to be incorrect when it was originally presented, but people keep holding on to it anyway because they like that it appears to contradict the Biblical timeline. It results in all sorts of incongruities when the Egyptian timeline is then compared to the timelines of other civilizations around them. Usually several rulers were in power in different regions at the same time, it was not one single ruler at a time as would be asserted in a sequential timeline.

This page has a chronology chart comparing Egyptian civilization to the Biblical timeline. It also has the Standard Egyptian, or sequential timeline, as well as the Revised Egyptian timeline.

"The standard Egyptian chronology causes problems for nearly every other civilization that it is used to date. It causes an unexplained dark ages across the ancient world. It also disagrees with 8th and 9th century Assyrian records that show them warring against the Hittites some 500 years after the standard Egyptian chronology claims that the Hittites were wiped out. The Hittite kings the Assyrians were warring against are the same kings found in Hittite records dated 500 years earlier by the Egyptian chronology."
http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_chronology

Then there's the other stuff like how the animals couldn't fit..

I suspect your assumption here is based on all species being on the Ark, not all kinds. Again, this is either reflecting ignorance on your part or the fallacy of equivocation.

..did Noah bring 200lbs of leafy vegetables for only the elephants and cast a magic spell to keep it edible for the year or so they were on sea?

Can they keep vegetables edible today, through canning or a temperature/humidity controlled room? Of course they can. Therefore your assumption is that Noah didn't know how to do this because he was stone age, which is an evolutionary assumption. This is then the fallacy of begging the question, since you assume an evolutionary progression in order to prove an evolutionary progression.

did the koala bears magically reach the ocean and fly over to the middle east?, how about the arctic creatures - did they enjoy the hot sun?

Your argument assumes modern koalas would have to be present on the Ark. I really don't think you can be that ignorant, so this must be the fallacy of equivocation. Whatever biblical kind the koala belongs to was represented on the Ark, and modern koalas descended from them. You appear to be asserting that the ancient koala-kind had to be located before the flood in exactly the same part of the world as it is today, and then came back to exactly the same part of the world after the flood. For this to work you would have to assert that koala fossils in China, if there are such, were deposited before the flood. Since this is not the creationist position, this is a strawman. It is also absurd.

Likewise it assumes modern climatological restrictions had to have been present in ancient organisms, which is equally absurd.

Saltwater and freshwater fish living in the same body of water?

You refer to modern fish's issues with varying salinity, and assume ancient fish had exactly the same problems, in effect assuming the creationist position of better, more fit organisms in the past is wrong in order to assert that same creationist position is wrong: again begging the question. Even today there are fish like the salmon which has no problem with fresh or salt water, so there is no evidence-based reason to claim other fish could not have had the same ability in the past.

Did the animals with specific dietary and environmental needs have their habitat board the ark as well?

Again you assume modern traits and limitations had to be present in the past, contrary to the stated creationist position that past organisms were more fit than modern ones, and so is again begging the question.

How did marsupials get off the ark in the middle east and wind up only in australia?

Perhaps you are not aware that there are marsupial mice in North America today? The marsupial skeleton has few unique characteristics about it in comparison to the placental mammal, making any claims regarding fossils being either marsupial or placental very subjective. They usually classify fossilized remains as one or the other not on differences but on assumptions based on where they are found:

"And yet, when remains of extinct mammals are discovered in regions where marsupials predominate today (e.g., Australia and New Guinea), or are assumed to have predominated in times past (South America), it is often assumed the fossils in question are those of marsupials. Mammalian specimens found outside those regions are typically categorized as placental."
http://www.macroevolution.net/marsupials.html

rcarty, have you ever heard of gene duplication, polyploidy, etc? There are well established and understood mechanisms by which genetic information does increase.

Two copies of the same book is not twice the information, it is the same amount of information as a single copy of the book. It is the evolutionary assumption that over great lengths of time portions of the duplicated DNA is randomly changed into something useful, and this is where the assertion of new, useful information comes in. This is not and cannot be observed, since it supposedly takes millions of years. Therefore you are assuming these changes occur and then using these changes as proof that they occur. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

Since we cannot get DNA out of fossilized organisms you know this is an impossibility. Likewise, your evolutionary assertion of duplicated sections being randomly mutated cannot be shown.

Comparison of the mitochondrial genomes shows that dogs have distinct sequences that are not found in Grey Wolves (the parent species of the domestic dog). This means that dogs have accumulated new variation since domestication.

Your assumption here is that the domestic dog is a descendant of wolves. You also assume that modern wolves could not have had portions of their genome broken or lost, thus providing the explanation for why dogs still have something that wolves do not.

There are examples of gain of function mutations that confer resistance.

A gain of a specific function, yes, but at an overall reduction in fitness of the organism, and the gain of function is the result of breaking already existing function in the DNA, and thus not an example of new, useful information.

Give specific examples. How does the mobility, shape, habitat, denisty, and intelligence of fossils of mollusks on top of mountains explain the geological record?

It appears to me you start with the assumption that deposition was at the present height that those fossils are found, not at the bottom of an ocean or something. That is, you assume an evolutionary time frame for mountain-building, and since this is not what creationstists assert it is a strawman.

chadn737

July 14th, 2011, 10:02 AM

Two copies of the same book is not twice the information, it is the same amount of information as a single copy of the book. It is the evolutionary assumption that over great lengths of time portions of the duplicated DNA is randomly changed into something useful, and this is where the assertion of new, useful information comes in. This is not and cannot be observed, since it supposedly takes millions of years. Therefore you are assuming these changes occur and then using these changes as proof that they occur. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

Your book analogy sucks because DNA is not a book. Two copies of a gene can be twice the information. With a book, you read it, that's it. With a gene, when you read it, you make an RNA copy, this is called transcription. The more copies of RNA that you make, the more protein from that gene is made. Increasing the number of copies from a gene can result in increased production of RNA, resulting in more protein, which can result in more activity. Hence an increase in "information."

For those who know about genetics, this is referred to as a dosage effect.

Lobbing false accusations of fallacies is not going to work. I actually know what I am talking about when it comes to genetics.

Since we cannot get DNA out of fossilized organisms you know this is an impossibility. Likewise, your evolutionary assertion of duplicated sections being randomly mutated cannot be shown.So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence to back your claim of greater genetic diversity in ancient species. Without evidence or any support, I demand you concede this claim.

By the way, we can extract ancient DNA. It has been done on the mammoth genome, it has been done on Neanderthals, and many ancient humans. Let me give you a recent example. Iceland is great for genetic studies, because it is an isolated human population, with extensive records.

mitochondrial DNA from Iceland's earlier settlers (~1000 AD) was sequenced and compared to their modern day descendents. This evidence clearly shows that modern Icelander's have undergone evolution, and are genetically more distinct from their ancestors, who more closely resemble populations in Scandinavia and Scotland. This is based on a 1000 years of recent history.

Lactose tolerance is given by mutations that allow lactase to be produced throughout adulthood. Its an adaptive trait that allows humans to utilize animal milk as a food source.

Sequences from ancestral Europeans 10-20,000 years ago show that the lactase alleles that provide lactose tolerance were not present in these early Europeans. The allele was not brought in by outside populations, because we can map recombination in the human genome, and show that the region where lactase is, has not come from outside populations. Basic Genetics.

Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3736.full

How about just one more example.

Your assumption here is that the domestic dog is a descendant of wolves.

The domestic dog is a descendent of the wolf. One way to study this is to compare the most ancient breeds of dogs, with more recent breeds, and wolves. One can also extract ancient dog DNA (just like they extracted dna from ancient humans). If dogs originated from wolves, then one should be able to observe the genetic changes that have occurred from wolf to dog.

What do you know!?!?! That's exactly what they did and guess what, its pretty obvious that dogs are descendent of wolves.

Mitochondrial DNA from Prehistoric Canids Highlights Relationships
Between Dogs and South-East European Wolves

You also assume that modern wolves could not have had portions of their genome broken or lost, thus providing the explanation for why dogs still have something that wolves do not.

I don't assume anything. You assume that we assume, but you assume this because you do not understand how genetics works or how one can design an experiment to deal with these possibilities.

Wolves are a widespread species, living on multiple continents. Its a well understood principle of genetics, that isolated populations, that do not interbreed will change genetically. I'm not even talking about mutation here, its just simple population genetics. If you start with 10 alleles for a gene and isolate various populations, overtime, the frequency of each allele in each population will diverge.

So in doing an evolutionary study like this, trying to find the relationship between dogs and wolves, you sequence genes from multiple wolves, from multiple populations, from all across the world.

Even if one wolf has a deletion, it is basic statistics and genetics that a wolf from a different population, a different habitat, will not have that same deletion.

Lo and behold, thats exactly what they did in the studies I just mentioned.

How about you spend some time finding actual scientific sources, understanding how the work is done and what it means before you simply accuse me of assuming anything.

A gain of a specific function, yes, but at an overall reduction in fitness of the organism, and the gain of function is the result of breaking already existing function in the DNA, and thus not an example of new, useful information.

Reduction in fitness?

You have no idea what you are talking about. The specific example from Arabidopsis that I cited did not reduce fitness, it increased fitness. The PDR9 mutation that the paper I cite refers to does not affect the normal growth of the plant. Its increased activity is specific for the herbicide 2,4-D.

You also fail to understand what is meant by increased protein stability. The normal function of the PRD9 protein is not affected at all.

Its like installing a radio into a car that didn't have one before. Car still does everything it did before, but now plays music.

Read before you throw out your canned answers.

It appears to me you start with the assumption that deposition was at the present height that those fossils are found, not at the bottom of an ocean or something. That is, you assume an evolutionary time frame for mountain-building, and since this is not what creationstists assert it is a strawman.

I didn't assume anything. I asked you to explain how an animals intelligence, habitat, etc explains fossil layers. Particularly how it explains mollusks on top of mountains. I didn't claim anything, you did, I called you on your ******** and asked you to support it.

I challenge you to support this argument or retract. If you do not provide any evidence for it and continue to insist on it, I will bring up with the staff as a failure to support an argument.

rockondon

July 14th, 2011, 10:33 AM

This amounts to a strawman, since creationists obviously do not agree with microbes to man evolution. Perhaps you could post the link to the page where you got that picture from? I linked the website immediately before the picture.
Wow, you have no idea what a strawman is at all. Here is the wiki definition for you:

straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Please refer back to that to save yourself future embarassment.

That is an evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record. As such, it is begging the question to use it as proof that the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record is correct. You're right. The fact that lower layers were layed down before upper layers is basic, common sense - which is the evolutionary interpretation.
And since you don't know what begging the question means, here's the wiki definition:

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Again, feel free to refer back to avoid yourself embarassment in the future.

Strawman. I did not say that organism deposition was purely a result of density. My apologies. I was unaware that you were also arguing against the existence of gravity.

The lowest layer, the precambrian, would be the first layer laid down by the Flood. As such it would be comprised almost exclusively of deep-sea organisms which were not able to avoid being buried. The precambrian is not a layer. It is an era that is represented by many geologic layers. If there was only one "the flood" then it would be one layer with all creatures mixed within it.

Do you believe that animals eat? Perhaps not, because of all the billions of fossils found, never once have we found something like a modern bunny in a T-rex belly or a devonian creature inside a jurassic creature. In fact, not only do we not see, for example, Devonian creatures inside modern creatures (or vice versa), we don't see them in the same layer anywhere in the world.

It may be comforting to imagine that the fossil record shows a 'trend' of marine creatures followed by not-quite-so-marine creatures, or denser creatures below not-so-dense creatures, etc. But here's an example of the order that is actually there:

The numerous tetrapod fossil finds in the fossil record shows that tetrapods (4-limbed animals) migrated from land during the Devonian period. The area of land this occured in is now found near the north pole (~400 million years ago this land mass was near the equator). Before the Tiktaalik was found, they knew what it would look like, when it lived, where it lived, and in what layers it would be found in. They looked where they expected it to be and they found exactly what they were looking for - a fish with shoulders, elbows, wrist and finger bones. It had fish attributes (fins, gills, scales), tetrapod attributes (lungs, a neck, rib bones), and 'fishapod' attributes (in-between fish/tetrapod limb bones, joints, and ears).

The next layer, the cambrian, has all major phyla present in it, disproving right there your single-common ancestor to current biodiversity interpretation of the geologic record.
The fact that you refer to the Cambrian as 'a layer' is very telling.

The millions of layers in the fossil record show a change over time of descent with modification. Amphibians don't appear earlier than fish, mammals don't appear before reptiles, and no complex life occurrs before the oldest eukaryotic cells - if an example of this was found today it would be evidence against evolution. The fossil record does not show some vague trend of precambrian creatures below cambrian ones.

This is either ignorance on your part or the fallacy of equivocation. The biblical flood was not one single deposition. Do tell.

Yes, and each of those layers are well sorted into those coarse or fine particles, which is the actual creationist position regarding hydrologic sorting. Which is often the exact opposite of what we find.

You are referring to the "conventional chronology" for Egypt, which is a 20th century invention. Actually I was referring to the fact that its kinda hard for people to write stuff when they're 5 miles underwater. If their calendar was out of sync, a funny color, or had fewer calories than other calendars, that's irrelevant.

I suspect your assumption here is based on all species being on the Ark, not all kinds. I forgot that you are an evolutionist - one that claims that all animals evolved from the 'kinds' on the ark.

Can they keep vegetables edible today, through canning or a temperature/humidity controlled room? Your counterargument then is that Noah placed a ~year supply of food for countless animals in a temperature/humidity controlled room on the ark?

rcarty

July 14th, 2011, 02:23 PM

Your book analogy sucks because DNA is not a book. Two copies of a gene can be twice the information. With a book, you read it, that's it. With a gene, when you read it, you make an RNA copy, this is called transcription. The more copies of RNA that you make, the more protein from that gene is made. Increasing the number of copies from a gene can result in increased production of RNA, resulting in more protein, which can result in more activity. Hence an increase in "information."

Isn't the standard evolutionary assumption that the copied gene is non-coding? Since you're well educated in genetics perhaps you can explain how a random copy of a gene comes about in the first place. Why would a transcription error cause the whole gene to be replicated and not a fragment? Aren't you assuming that no matter what gene is duplicated, having it generate twice as many proteins is always going to be a good thing?

So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence to back your claim of greater genetic diversity in ancient species. Without evidence or any support, I demand you concede this claim.

As long as you retract your claim on the same grounds I am happy to comply.

By the way, we can extract ancient DNA. It has been done on the mammoth genome, it has been done on Neanderthals, and many ancient humans. Let me give you a recent example. Iceland is great for genetic studies, because it is an isolated human population, with extensive records.

Sure, but to support the single common ancestor for all life claim you have to go back to all organisms fould fossilized, and which are currently claimed as being ancestral to the current biodiversity. This is why it is a double standard if you require me to withdraw my assertion of my presupposiiton if you refuse to withdraw your own assertion based on your presupposition.

mitochondrial DNA from Iceland's earlier settlers (~1000 AD) was sequenced and compared to their modern day descendents. This evidence clearly shows that modern Icelander's have undergone evolution, and are genetically more distinct from their ancestors, who more closely resemble populations in Scandinavia and Scotland. This is based on a 1000 years of recent history.

When you say 'evolution' here, do you mean they have evolved into some new species, or do you mean they have had minor changes? If the latter, then this proves nothing since the creationist position is such change over time evolution is observed and does happen. When you say they are "genetically more distinct from their ancestors", aren't you only talking about minor change over time evolution? If so, then it is not an example of the microbes to man evolution which you imply, it is the fallacy of equivocation.

Sequences from ancestral Europeans 10-20,000 years ago show that the lactase alleles that provide lactose tolerance were not present in these early Europeans. The allele was not brought in by outside populations, because we can map recombination in the human genome, and show that the region where lactase is, has not come from outside populations. Basic Genetics.

Well, that would be good research if they have proven by checking all ancient genomes and have not found it anywhere. What you appear to say, however, is only that they found it wasn't in early Eurpoeans. If it was in other population groups then that disproves it appeared in Europeans due to random mutations.

What do you know!?!?! That's exactly what they did and guess what, its pretty obvious that dogs are descendent of wolves.

So modern wolves and modern domestic dogs are both descended from ancient wolves. What exactly does this do to support your argument "that dogs have accumulated new variation since domestication"? When they did that genetic comparison to ancient wolves, did they find the new variation you speak of was not present, or is it really only that modern wolves don't have it but dogs (still) do?

Mitochondrial DNA from Prehistoric Canids Highlights Relationships
Between Dogs and South-East European Wolves

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/2541.full

Thank you for the link. This statement, "The ancient sequences were highly diverse.." appears to support the creationist assertion of greater genetic information in past organisms. Is there some other interpretation of what they're saying that can mean ancient sequences were less complex, or less evolved somehow?

"The striking phenotypic and genetic diversity of dogs clearly indicates that their founders were recruited from a large and varied wolf population" appears to indicate modern dog's genetic diversity is inherited, not brought about through subsequent random mutations.

The statement "bottlenecking of most wolf populations" does seem to clearly indicate my previous question regarding wolves having less genetic diversity than dogs is due not to dogs evolving new genetic diversity, but due to modern wolves being the result of a reduction in genetic diversity. If I have missed the portion of this document where they showed how their research supports your claim that dogs have increased their geneitc diversity since domestication through random mutations, please quote it for me because I can't find it, thanks.

I only have access for free to the abstract on this one, however one phrase there seems to support the creationist position of loss of genetic diversity over time: "underlining the loss of mitochondrial diversity in Europe since the Neolithic."

Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/27.../1687.abstract

Thanks for the link. This one is available with my free account.

One phrase caught my eye while reading it, which goes back to my original point regarding various species being able to breed, thus supporting the creationist assertion of the possibility of hybridization sometimes as far up the taxonomic tree as family: "Because all wild species of the genus Canis can interbreed.." Your response the wolves and domestic dogs are of the same species is fine, but here it states even organisms in different genera can interbreed.

Again, if I'm missing the part where this article supports your assertion of new, useful genetic information in domestic dogs coming about through random mutations since they descended from a common wolf ancestor, please point it out to me. I can't find the word 'mutation' used in the article even once. All I see are phrases like, "a genetically diverse heritage" and so on, indicating they think the domestic dogs' genetic diversity is inherited.

I don't assume anything. You assume that we assume, but you assume this because you do not understand how genetics works or how one can design an experiment to deal with these possibilities.

Perhaps you're not assuming it, but based on what the articles you linked to seem to say, you do seem to be asserting something contrary to what their research shows. What would you call that, then, if not an assumption? Perhaps an assertion that is contrary to evidence?

Its a well understood principle of genetics, that isolated populations, that do not interbreed will change genetically.

If it is "a well understood principle", but it's not supported by observation, then it's still only an assumption. When you say "change genetically", you imply this includes new, useful information as well as breaking or losing existing genetic diversity. In fact, since you say this in reply to my assertion, it would seem you are saying it is instead of the loss of brokenness of existing genetic diversity. Where is your proof of this assertion?

I'm not even talking about mutation here, its just simple population genetics. If you start with 10 alleles for a gene and isolate various populations, overtime, the frequency of each allele in each population will diverge.

If you're not talking about random genetic change, what are you talking about?

Even if one wolf has a deletion, it is basic statistics and genetics that a wolf from a different population, a different habitat, will not have that same deletion.

Well, I agree completely with you on this. This is in fact part of the creationist position, that over time genetic diversity is lost. But weren't you claiming that this creationist position was wrong?

Lo and behold, thats exactly what they did in the studies I just mentioned.

Ok, I'm glad you agree with me that the studies you linked to support the creationist position and are not examples of random mutation providing increased genetic diversity.

How about you spend some time finding actual scientific sources, understanding how the work is done and what it means before you simply accuse me of assuming anything.

This appears to be the canard about my only adhering to the creationist position because I am uneducated; that if only I would learn what evolution is all about I too would believe in it and accept it as true. By this you assume I have not already investigated it, and you also assume I would embrace it if I understood it.

Its like installing a radio into a car that didn't have one before. Car still does everything it did before, but now plays music.

The car does everything it did before, but now it uses a little more power than before; it requires more energy to do it's original job. That is a reduction in fitness if energy consumption is important. Let's take your analogy farther, to one of the car systems where they have filled the vehicle with speakers and amplifiers and so on. Now there is much less (if any) room for passengers or cargo, and they cannot play the music with the engine off because the battery will be drained in minutes. Fitness is relative. To the person trying to win the boom box competition it's an increase, but to the average person who wants to be able to carry some groceries or friends it's a loss of fitness.

It appears to me you start with the assumption that deposition was at the present height that those fossils are found, not at the bottom of an ocean or something. That is, you assume an evolutionary time frame for mountain-building, and since this is not what creationstists assert..

I didn't assume anything.

Did you not, as I asserted, assume the fossils were deposited at the top of the mountain? Did you not assume, as I asserted, that mountains take a very long time to grow to their present height? Did you not assume a long time for the mountains to reach their present height in your claim that fossils on the top of mountains disproves the biblical flood? Did you not assume this was agreed upon by creationists as well, in order to attempt to disprove the creationist assertion of a biblical flood? If I have misunderstood your assertion please explain.

I asked you to explain how an animals intelligence, habitat, etc explains fossil layers. Particularly how it explains mollusks on top of mountains.

I already explained it. Claiming I have not probably means that you have dismissed what I said, and that's your choice, but not accepting what's said is not at all the same as not receiving an explanation, which is what you wrongly assert.

I didn't claim anything, you did, I called you on your ******** and asked you to support it.

Didn't you claim that fossils on top of mountains disproved the biblical flood?

Isn't the standard evolutionary assumption that the copied gene is non-coding? Since you're well educated in genetics perhaps you can explain how a random copy of a gene comes about in the first place. Why would a transcription error cause the whole gene to be replicated and not a fragment? Aren't you assuming that no matter what gene is duplicated, having it generate twice as many proteins is always going to be a good thing?

Why would that be the "standard evolutionary assumption?" Gene duplication has been studied for decades and there are multiple mechanisms by which a fully functional copy of a gene can be replicated. One of the most common results from unequal crossing over during Chromosome recombination. This can result in duplication of large segments of DNA, sometimes containing multiple genes.

There are also retrotranspositions. There are whole genome duplications, resulting in polyploidy, this is quite common in plants.

chadn737

July 14th, 2011, 03:40 PM

As long as you retract your claim on the same grounds I am happy to comply.But I have presented evidence. I have cited several papers that have shown accumulation of new genetic information. We can compare DNA isolate from ancient populations and show that there has been addition of new genetic material. Meaning an increase in genetic diversity, not a loss.

Sure, but to support the single common ancestor for all life claim you have to go back to all organisms fould fossilized, and which are currently claimed as being ancestral to the current biodiversity. This is why it is a double standard if you require me to withdraw my assertion of my presupposiiton if you refuse to withdraw your own assertion based on your presupposition.

I didn't say anything about a common ancestor, nor do I have to. I'm just claiming that there is evolution leading to speciation, i.e macro-evolution over large geological time-spans. You do not have to presume a common ancestor for this.

When you say 'evolution' here, do you mean they have evolved into some new species, or do you mean they have had minor changes? If the latter, then this proves nothing since the creationist position is such change over time evolution is observed and does happen. When you say they are "genetically more distinct from their ancestors", aren't you only talking about minor change over time evolution? If so, then it is not an example of the microbes to man evolution which you imply, it is the fallacy of equivocation.

You throw around fallacies without thought.

First off, how do you define "minor change" which you creationists accept as fact "and some major change?" There is no difference. The mechanisms are exactly the same. The only difference between big change and minor change is time and how much minor change has accumulated. If you accept that minor change can occur, then you already accept the molecular mechanisms that result in macro-evolution.

1000 years in humans is actually a very short time. Its only 40 generations. That so many changes have occurred in Iceland, is actually very rapid, but not that surprising for an isolated population. The point is not that it has resulted in speciation, but that we have an example where we can directly compare anscestoral DNA to direct descendents and show genetic changes.

Well, that would be good research if they have proven by checking all ancient genomes and have not found it anywhere. What you appear to say, however, is only that they found it wasn't in early Eurpoeans. If it was in other population groups then that disproves it appeared in Europeans due to random mutations.

The European allele of lactase that results in lactose tolerance is specific for Europeans, not found in Africans, Middle Eastern or other populations.

rcarty

July 14th, 2011, 04:43 PM

I linked the website immediately before the picture.

Ok, thanks. I didn't find the link under the one word before. I don't see that the site says it agrees with that chart. Can you please quote me where they say this?

This amounts to a strawman, since creationists obviously do not agree with microbes to man evolution.

Wow, you have no idea what a strawman is at all. Here is the wiki definition for you:

straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Please refer back to that to save yourself future embarassment.

So your defense my claiming strawman is that I don't know what a strwaman is. Are you then claiming the creationist position does include agreeing with the microbes to man evolution position? If so, please give references. Meanwhile, I'll just point out to you the simple fact that I am a creationist, I know the creationist position, and I do not agree with the microbes to man evolution position. I'll also point out that it is the fundamental difference that we are debating here.

QUOTE=rcarty]That is an evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record. As such, it is begging the question to use it as proof that the evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record is correct.[/QUOTE]

You're right. The fact that lower layers were layed down before upper layers is basic, common sense - which is the evolutionary interpretation.

The creationist obviously doesn't dispute that lower layers were not generally deposited after layers above (although there are a few examples of volcanic intrusions). The dispute comes in when evolutionists assert that there had to be millions of years between each layer's deposition, and also when evolutionists assert that there had to be millions of years for each layer's deposition.

And since you don't know what begging the question means, here's the wiki definition:

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Again, feel free to refer back to avoid yourself embarassment in the future.

And again, do you claim that you were not using an evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record to support an evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record? If it's not please explain.

QUOTE=rcarty]Strawman. I did not say that organism deposition was purely a result of density.[/QUOTE]

My apologies. I was unaware that you were also arguing against the existence of gravity.

Well, that's either the fallacy of equivocation or seriously misreading what I said.

The precambrian is not a layer. It is an era that is represented by many geologic layers.

I stand corrected.

If there was only one "the flood" then it would be one layer with all creatures mixed within it.

No, if there was only one flood deposition then everything would be mixed in that one layer. I have already made it perfectly clear that it was not one deposition but a series of depositions.

Do you believe that animals eat? Perhaps not, because of all the billions of fossils found, never once have we found something like a modern bunny in a T-rex belly or a devonian creature inside a jurassic creature. In fact, not only do we not see, for example, Devonian creatures inside modern creatures (or vice versa), we don't see them in the same layer anywhere in the world.

Of course I believe animals eat. You appear to imply that all dinosaurs only ate animals. Perhaps there hasn't been a mammal in a dino, but how about a dino in the belly of a mammal?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0121dino_dinner.asp

The numerous tetrapod fossil finds in the fossil record shows that tetrapods (4-limbed animals) migrated from land during the Devonian period. The area of land this occured in is now found near the north pole (~400 million years ago this land mass was near the equator). Before the Tiktaalik was found, they knew what it would look like, when it lived, where it lived, and in what layers it would be found in. They looked where they expected it to be and they found exactly what they were looking for - a fish with shoulders, elbows, wrist and finger bones. It had fish attributes (fins, gills, scales), tetrapod attributes (lungs, a neck, rib bones), and 'fishapod' attributes (in-between fish/tetrapod limb bones, joints, and ears).

The Devonian layers have been identified in many other parts of the world, including just a few miles away from where the scientists live who found Tiktaalik in the artic. If it was so perfectly predicted as you say, why did they spend several years looking in the Devonian layers near where they live before looking in other parts of the world?

You are referring to the "conventional chronology" for Egypt, which is a 20th century invention.

Actually I was referring to the fact that its kinda hard for people to write stuff when they're 5 miles underwater. If their calendar was out of sync, a funny color, or had fewer calories than other calendars, that's irrelevant.

And I was pointing out that since the sequential or conventional chronology is wrong, your point regarding them having to write underwater during the Flood is incorrect and irrelevant.

I forgot that you are an evolutionist - one that claims that all animals evolved from the 'kinds' on the ark.

As long as you admit the difference between change over time evolution and microbes to man evolution I have no problem with what you called me here.

Your counterargument then is that Noah placed a ~year supply of food for countless animals in a temperature/humidity controlled room on the ark?

Strawman: not countless animals, that's still the 'all species on the Ark' claim. Scientists who have studied this currently estimate there were about 8,000 kinds on the Ark, which would mean a bit more than 16,000 animals. I do indeed claim Noah had the expertise and the time to have enough food onboard for the 15 months they and the animals were on it.

One of the most common results from unequal crossing over during Chromosome recombination. This can result in duplication of large segments of DNA, sometimes containing multiple genes.

So you're saying that some copies of genes continue to work? Can you give me examples of this?

..resulting in polyploidy, this is quite common in plants.

Polyploidy is normally a lethal genetic change in humans and animals, so it is not a credible example to use as support of microbes to man evolution.

theophilus

July 16th, 2011, 08:42 AM

Most theologians I read about feel that Noah's flood happened around 2349BC.
Its interesting though that Egyptian histories have been written since about 1,000 years before Noah's flood and continued throughout.The dating of Noah's flood at 2349BC is based on the Biblical genealogies and assumes that they are complete. If you study the Bible closely you will see that this isn't necessarily the case.

First Chronicles 6:1-3 says:

The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam.
There are only two generations recorded between Levi and Moses. According to Genesis 46:11 Kohath was alive when the Israelites moved to Egypt and Exodus 12:41 shows that the were in Egypt 430 years. But Exodus 6:18-20 says:

The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, the years of the life of Kohath being 133 years. The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the clans of the Levites according to their generations. Amram took as his wife Jochebed his father's sister, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, the years of the life of Amram being 137 years.
Since their combined lifespans fall far short of the total time in Egypt it is obvious that the genealogy in incomplete and some generations have been omitted.

More proof that some of the genealogies aren't complete is found by comparing Genesis 11:12,

When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah.
with Luke 3:35,36,

the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad.
The genealogy in Genesis omitted Cainan. Others people could also have been left out of the genealogies. This means the flood could have occurred much earlier that 2349BC.

It is also possible that the generally accepted dates of Egyptian history are wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/chronology-wars

chadn737

July 17th, 2011, 09:36 AM

So you're saying that some copies of genes continue to work? Can you give me examples of this?The Alocohol Dehydrogenase-1 of Maize. BAR gene of Drosophila. These two have been studied extensively.

Polyploidy is normally a lethal genetic change in humans and animals, so it is not a credible example to use as support of microbes to man evolution. Just because it is normally lethal in higher mammals (not animals, mammals) does not mean it is not a means of genome expansion in evolution. Polyploidy can and does occur in plants, lower animals, amphibians, reptiles, lower eukaryotes, etc.

So it is a credible example. Mammals are a recent development, and polyploidy would have played a role in earlier transitions. In the case of mammals, viral insertion is actually one of the major drivers of genome expansion. It can cause unequal crossing over, viral elements can affect gene expression through multiple means and it can result in transposition of genes.

Furthermore, you miss the point that there are many mechanisms for amplification of genetic complexity. Polyploidy being one. Again, I haven't said anything about microbe to man evolution. You are trying to force me into a corner. I don't need to. All I am claiming is that macro-evolution, i.e. genetic changes, leading to diversification and speciation is fact. And I have demonstrated that the mechanisms exist. I have cited numerous actual papers. You cite nothing. You mine those papers for quotes that you think supports your position without understanding the research at all.

By the way, there are known examples where speciation of plants has resulted from polyploidization. Not only have they been observed in the wild, but oftentimes the event can be recapitulated experimentally. So all the evidence is there for macroevolution resulting from genome duplication.

rcarty

July 17th, 2011, 05:10 PM

The Alocohol Dehydrogenase-1 of Maize. BAR gene of Drosophila. These two have been studied extensively.

Can you provide links to specific articles which support your assertion of copied sections being immediately coding? This would mean, of course, that they have observed such new duplications, with accompanying new traits immediately coded from the copies. From what I have read it seems to me neither of these are new.

Just because it is normally lethal in higher mammals (not animals, mammals) does not mean it is not a means of genome expansion in evolution. Polyploidy can and does occur in plants, lower animals, amphibians, reptiles, lower eukaryotes, etc.

So it is a credible example. Mammals are a recent development, and polyploidy would have played a role in earlier transitions. In the case of mammals, viral insertion is actually one of the major drivers of genome expansion. It can cause unequal crossing over, viral elements can affect gene expression through multiple means and it can result in transposition of genes.

Ok, as long as you are willing to agree that polyploidy cannot by your own admission be used as an example of an increase of new, useful genetic information in mammals but only in plants (which according to the microbes to man evolutionary position were ancestral to all of the animal kingdom) then I'm willing to go along with this for now.

Polyploidy in animals I believe, where it is not immediately lethal, renders them sterile. How then can this be an example of genetic changes inherited by subsequent generations?

Your statement that mammals are a recent development is an evolutionary presupposition, so it is circular reasoning and the fallacy of begging the question to use this in supporting your evolutionary position.

Furthermore, you miss the point that there are many mechanisms for amplification of genetic complexity. Polyploidy being one.

You brought it up so it is valid for me to talk about it.

Again, I haven't said anything about microbe to man evolution. You are trying to force me into a corner. I don't need to. All I am claiming is that macro-evolution, i.e. genetic changes, leading to diversification and speciation is fact. And I have demonstrated that the mechanisms exist.

Well, if all you are talking about is change over time evolution, and are not asserting that these same mechanisms have brought about the current divserity from a single common ancestor, then are in agreement.

I have cited numerous actual papers. You cite nothing. You mine those papers for quotes that you think supports your position without understanding the research at all.

Which is it that you claim I have done, cited nothing, or cited them incorrectly?

Are you referring to the three papers you linked to, two of which I could access, and which I asked you to quote the parts which support your argument, since it seemed to be as I posted that they supported my position instead?

By the way, there are known examples where speciation of plants has resulted from polyploidization. Not only have they been observed in the wild, but oftentimes the event can be recapitulated experimentally. So all the evidence is there for macroevolution resulting from genome duplication.

Do these observed examples of polyploidy bring about new species of plants? (I expect so.) Do they bring about new genera or families of plants? Do they bring about new classes? If only the former, then there is no dispute here. To claim that there is constitutes a strawman.

rcarty

July 20th, 2011, 02:25 PM

Define precisely what you meant and then substantiate his claim. There does not exist a "Type III supernova" in the modern, accepted supernova taxonomy. Either he's using esoteric terminology or he's making something up. If it's the latter, then it'd make a lot of sense why scientists hadn't found a type III supernova.

Here's another article on this argument.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-a-young-universe

chadn737

July 21st, 2011, 04:16 PM

Do these observed examples of polyploidy bring about new species of plants? (I expect so.) Do they bring about new genera or families of plants? Do they bring about new classes? If only the former, then there is no dispute here. To claim that there is constitutes a strawman.

Taxonomic classification is an artificial system created by humans purely to place life into a convenient organizing scheme.

There is no set definition of what characteristics are needed to create a new genera or class. That's because such boundaries do not actually exist in living organisms, but again are artificial constructs designed for our own convenience.

Yes, theses instances of polyploidy create new species, as it creates phenotypically distinct population of organisms that do not interbreed with those they are derived from. This is a clear example of evolution at the macro, i.e the population, level.

If you are willing to accept that speciation can occur, then you have already conceded that macro-evolutionary change happens, because any higher level classification does not represent an actual boundary (which is what you are asserting here) because there is no boundary beyond the ability to interbreed. These boundaries (genera, classes, phylum, etc) are artificial, mere human constructs.

rcarty

July 21st, 2011, 04:46 PM

Do these observed examples of polyploidy bring about new species of plants? (I expect so.) Do they bring about new genera or families of plants? Do they bring about new classes? If only the former, then there is no dispute here. To claim that there is constitutes a strawman.

Taxonomic classification is an artificial system created by humans purely to place life into a convenient organizing scheme.

There is no set definition of what characteristics are needed to create a new genera or class. That's because such boundaries do not actually exist in living organisms, but again are artificial constructs designed for our own convenience.

I agree, and so is the term species. It is generally used when loss of fertility is observed but morphological differences alone can be used to declare speciation. For example, lions and tigers hybridizing proves, if fertility alone is the criteria for speciation, that they are of the same species. The same is true for camels and llamas, Darwin finches and so on.

Yes, theses instances of polyploidy create new species, as it creates phenotypically distinct population of organisms that do not interbreed with those they are derived from. This is a clear example of evolution at the macro, i.e the population, level.

If you are willing to accept that speciation can occur, then you have already conceded that macro-evolutionary change happens, because any higher level classification does not represent an actual boundary (which is what you are asserting her) because there is no boundary beyond the ability to interbreed. These boundaries (genera, classes, phylum, etc) are artificial, mere human constructs.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. It implies that small changes equal large changes. Just because we see small changes does not prove the large changes of microbes to man evolution can or have occurred. It does not prove there has been an increase in complexity from the necessarily simple first life and the common ancestor of all life to the current biodiversity.

It is also the fallacy of equivocation regarding the artificial construct of the term species being the same as the biblical kinds, and implying from that that observed phenotypic changes which cause loss of inter-fertility disproves the creationist position of no new kinds.

I do happen to agree that there is no greater boundary beyond the ability to interbreed, but I disagree that a loss of inter-fertility equals speciation and disproof of the biblical position. A loss of fertility does not always equal speciation. If it did, any person or other organism which was infertile would have to be classified as a different species, and if they were completely infertile then they would be in effect infertile with all other organisms, thus they would have to be their own unique species.

rockondon

July 25th, 2011, 07:55 PM

If I was a theist I would be grateful for the theory of evolution for explaining the dysfunctions, blunders, oddities, and cruelties of life as the result of a natural process instead of the intentional doings of a creator.

When I was a Christian, I imagined God creating the universe and this beautiful world of ours - essentially a spinning, cooling ball of lava...a mixture of all kinds of matter, liquids, and gas. This god could use His powers to make the planet habitable and use His powers again to put life here...but He didn't have to. In His infinite wisdom, He already provided everything necessary. Molecules attract and repel, combine and separate, and interact in ways that enable them to do amazing things on their own. A very simple arrangement of molecules forms together with the ability to replicate - life has begun. This wonderful, competent God created a world that is self-sustaining, further intervention was unneccessary. Life was far from perfect but, ironically, these imperfections are our most precious attribute. Imperfections result in tiny changes from parent to offspring, and tiny changes become large changes over a great deal of time. Life is brutal too - but without this competition we might still be single celled organisms. Our predecessors went through terrible trials and hardship to pass on the beneficial traits to make us beautiful. We owe them a great debt - they endured hell so we could live (comparably speaking) in paradise.

But the creationists around me believed in a different god.
Their god was not as competent. Their god used His powers for creation, but He kept needing to use them. A spell for each animal, each bird, each fish, for floods, for people, for miracles, and numerous other interventions to keep the world functioning. He made abundant mistakes- animals with sightless eyes, flightless birds with wings, men with nipples, whales with leg bones, etc. He killed people by the million. He demands people to love Him and threatened eternal torment if they didn't. Their god deceived His followers by making the world look old, by arranging fossils from simple to complex, by creating biological similarities that match this fossil record, etc.
I never saw the appeal of believing in a god that has so many of the worst of human attributes.

rcarty

July 25th, 2011, 09:40 PM

If I was a theist I would be grateful for the theory of evolution for explaining the dysfunctions, blunders, oddities, and cruelties of life as the result of a natural process instead of the intentional doings of a creator.

If you were a Christian then you would understand from the Bible that it is man's fault, not God's, that there is death, disease and suffering in the world.

When I was a Christian, I imagined God creating the universe and this beautiful world of ours - essentially a spinning, cooling ball of lava...a mixture of all kinds of matter, liquids, and gas.

When you were a Christian, did reading the Bible to find out what God had to say about how this earth and life on it came to be enter into your equation, or was it all as you say here, just your imagination?

But the creationists around me believed in a different god.

I agree with you there.

rockondon

July 25th, 2011, 10:02 PM

If you were a Christian then you would understand from the Bible that it is man's fault, not God's, that there is death, disease and suffering in the world. Man did not design all the creatures, oddities, etc today.

When you were a Christian, did reading the Bible to find out what God had to say about how this earth and life on it came to be enter into your equation, or was it all as you say here, just your imagination? I read the bible as a book of lessons and metaphor. I felt that it was doing the book a disservice to read it as though it were a science or history book. I also felt that if one wanted to understand how the world works, they should take a good look at the world and be objective and honest. If a book says one thing and the world says another, it isn't the planet that's lying to you.

Incidentally, I have a question for you. From what I understand, you believe that there was one global flood but multiple deposition layers. Could you explain to me how those multiple layers were deposited?

rcarty

July 25th, 2011, 11:02 PM

Man did not design all the creatures, oddities, etc today.

Neither, according to you apparently, did God, so this is no argument. It is also a strawman if you are claiming creationists say God created all life in the beginning as we see it today.

I read the bible as a book of lessons and metaphor. I felt that it was doing the book a disservice to read it as though it were a science or history book. I also felt that if one wanted to understand how the world works, they should take a good look at the world and be objective and honest.

So, if the Bible says God authored it, do you only accept that if your senses, logic and reasoning agree? If God writes a passage like the first chapter of Genesis in words that makes it very clear that God intended it to be taken as literal narrative, you would have to have some presupposition that God does not always speak the truth to think you had to verify it with your own senses, etc. rather than accept what God says there as true. You are thus putting your own intellect and senses as higher authority than God. It appears God and the Bible was not your ultimate authority during the time you describe yourself as a Christian.

If a book says one thing and the world says another, it isn't the planet that's lying to you.

If you claim the planet is speaking personally to you then you have bigger problems than any creation vs. evolution discussion can deal with. I must assume however you are referring instead to your interpretation of evidences you find on the planet, that is, your senses, logic and reason that give you the message that disagrees with the Bible. If you claim your senses, logic and reason are infallible then again you have other bigger problems. Otherwise you must admit that it is possible that your interpretation of the evidence could be wrong and your statement of the situation is not so clear. It is in fact the fallacy of the false dilemma.

Incidentally, I have a question for you. From what I understand, you believe that there was one global flood but multiple deposition layers. Could you explain to me how those multiple layers were deposited?

The Flood was not a placid event. It was a global tectonic catastrophe. The water ran first one way, then another as the land masses shifted. Some of the depositions were picked up again to be deposited later somewhere else, consistent with various observed planar erosional boundaries. The Flood was a series of sedimentary and volcanic depositions over a period of at least a year. It is clear from paleocurrents recorded worldwide that there were several supercontinental if not global sedimentary depositions. The lower layers also show clearly that the current mountain ranges were not present when they were laid down. Higher layers do show some continental patterns, indicating they were laid down as the present mountain ranges were beginning to erupt. Those paleocurrents also show that the direction of the water flow is different in different layers, but within the same layer it is consistent supercontinentally.

Jinna

August 14th, 2011, 03:08 AM

Evolution is the surival of the fittest.
This doesnt explain how cows came to be on the earth.

pandion

August 17th, 2011, 08:39 PM

Evolution is the surival [sic] of the fittest.
This doesnt explain how cows came to be on the earth.
Actually, it's not. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over generations. That is the definition of evolution used by evolutionary biologists. Biologists may also mean observed changes that conform to the definition of evolution then they use the term. They may also talk about mechanisms of evolution, meaning natural processes that cause changes that conform to the definition of evolution. And, of course, there is the umbrella theory of common descent of all life from a common ancestor, also sometimes called evolution. So the term evolution can actually carry several meanings that reflect the 5 primary theories proposed by Darwin along with the two theories proposed by Mendel. However, never ever does the term "evolution", when used by anyone with any knowledge of the subject, mean "survival of the fittest."

"Survival of the fittest" is a concept coined by the sociologist, Herbert Spencer. Spencer had read Darwin and thought that Darwin's concept of natural selection could be applied to economics. The resulting social theories have been called social Darwinism, even though Darwin actually had nothing to do with the concepts.

Unfortunately, Spencer's term, influenced by Darwin's theory of natural selection, has been incorrectly applied back to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Spencer's concept is actually circular, a logical tautology. Only the fit survive and the fit are determined by those that survive. That's not an idea that is relevant to Darwin's theory.

Natural selection was Darwin's most brilliant and original hypothesis. Natural selection was viewed by Darwin as the major mechanism of change. It is based on a few simple observations and inferences:

a.All organisms produce so many offspring that population size would increase exponentially if not constrained.

b.Adult populations remain relatively constant.

c.In any environment there exists a limited number of resources.

d.As a result, all organisms must be engaged in a constant competition to acquire these limited resources for themselves in order to survive.

e.There exists in any population great variability such that no two individuals are exactly the same.

f.Among the variable characteristics that all species have, some organisms have heritable characteristics that make them better able (or less able) than others to acquire the resources necessary for life.

g.Those organisms that are better able to acquire the necessary resources are more likely to reach maturity and to pass those heritable characteristics on to their progeny, while those organisms that are at a disadvantage will tend to reproduce less (differential reproductive success).

h.As a result, populations change over time.

Darwin realized that this process operating within populations would result in organisms that appeared designed for their environment.

As you can see, "survival of the fittest" was a social theory of economics developed by Herbert Spencer in his efforts to apply biological theories to sociology. It doesn't apply to biology. So, no, a theory of social economics does not explain how cows came to be on earth.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory does. Cows (I presume you mean domestic cattle) came to be on earth when primitive people captured and selectively bred wild animals to produce domestic animals. It's been done with cattle, goats, pigs, cats, dogs, chickens, geese, ducks and more. The process is called artificial selection by biologists. That's because the organisms in question are not adapted to a natural environment, but rather, an artificial one. Humans (not the environment) select which individuals will be allowed to propagate.

yasashiku

August 18th, 2011, 09:13 PM

This looks like a good point to take artificial selection to its extreme...

(As is always the case with lengthy threads, there's a very good chance someone has brought up this point already. My initial skimming didn't find this point, though, so I'll try it - if I'm being redundant, feel free to call me on it.)

Just out of curiosity, how would you all describe a genetically modified organism in relation to its "parental" biological material? Is a GMO created by a biologist, or is it descended from its predecessor? Could we say that both terms apply?

With man's current ability to tweak organisms, it is not too hard to imagine (in a perfectly scientifically acceptable way) the creation of a species. The scientific fact of evolution in no way preempts the possibility of God (or even man in a century or two?) creating an organism in a single step.

I would also argue that it is doctrinally superstitious for a Christian to assume that, just because God may have created one specific organism directly, that He must have done the same with all life - but that probably belongs in the religion forum, not the scientific one.

chadn737

August 18th, 2011, 09:21 PM

This looks like a good point to take artificial selection to its extreme...

(As is always the case with lengthy threads, there's a very good chance someone has brought up this point already. My initial skimming didn't find this point, though, so I'll try it - if I'm being redundant, feel free to call me on it.)

Just out of curiosity, how would you all describe a genetically modified organism in relation to its "parental" biological material? Is a GMO created by a biologist, or is it descended from its predecessor? Could we say that both terms apply?

With man's current ability to tweak organisms, it is not too hard to imagine (in a perfectly scientifically acceptable way) the creation of a species. The scientific fact of evolution in no way preempts the possibility of God (or even man in a century or two?) creating an organism in a single step.

I would also argue that it is doctrinally superstitious for a Christian to assume that, just because God may have created one specific organism directly, that He must have done the same with all life - but that probably belongs in the religion forum, not the scientific one.

Craig Venter and his company created an artificial organism, pieced together the entire genome from scratch almost 2 years ago.

yasashiku

August 23rd, 2011, 11:53 AM

Craig Venter and his company created an artificial organism, pieced together the entire genome from scratch almost 2 years ago.

Wow, how did I not know about this? Thanks - this makes my argument even simpler.

(For anyone interested, their website is http://www.jcvi.org/)

xanadu

August 23rd, 2011, 05:23 PM

a short-haired dog that is put into a cold atmosphere will, over time, breed & grow longer hair...however, it will not turn into another species completely...say a woolly mammoth. macroevolution has been proven as scientific fact. microevolution has never been proven. we have never seen a monkey, turn into a human. :)

Dionysus

August 23rd, 2011, 06:08 PM

we have never seen a monkey, turn into a human. :)Is that how you think evolution works? If you do, it's about as incorrect as thinking babies are delivered to parents in a bag by a stork. :)

pandion

August 23rd, 2011, 09:37 PM

a short-haired dog that is put into a cold atmosphere will, over time, breed & grow longer hair...however, it will not turn into another species completely...say a woolly mammoth. macroevolution has been proven as scientific fact. microevolution has never been proven. we have never seen a monkey, turn into a human. :)
It would be really nice if you actually understood what you opposed before you spoke. You only make yourself look foolish when you talk about macroevolution, which is the evolution of new species, as a fact, and then claim that microevolution a monkey becoming a human (which would be macroevolution squared). Have you ever considered actually making an effort to learn the principles of evolutionary biology? If you don't understand even the basics of modern biology, how can you claim to oppose them?

Desmonthes

October 23rd, 2011, 03:51 PM

As to the second comment, abortion is a choice made everyday and the fetus has no comprehension of it. It should not be made illegal or else our world would be overfilled soon enough.

rockondon

October 25th, 2011, 12:43 PM

a short-haired dog that is put into a cold atmosphere will, over time, breed & grow longer hair...however, it will not turn into another species completely...say a woolly mammoth. macroevolution has been proven as scientific fact. microevolution has never been proven. we have never seen a monkey, turn into a human. :) And here we have the typical creationist response.

I especially enjoy the part where you disagree with microevolution and admit that macroevolution is a proven fact. Your fellow creationists will probably cringe after that one.

If we ever saw a monkey turn into a human, that would be powerful evidence against evolution, not for it. But please continue with your claims, they're very amusing.

salylimon67

October 26th, 2011, 09:01 PM

A proof of evolution, if I am not wrong, is the simple mutation and change of viruses. They adapt to their surroundings for survival. They change constantly to be stronger and therefore compete with vaccinations to survive. Viruses produced afterwards are born/made with resistance that makes them stronger and harder to kill.

"A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating 'that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.'"

Seems like evolution to me. If it's possible at a small scale, it's possible in larger scales.

SgtPeppers

March 22nd, 2012, 08:40 AM

Okay, I got into a tangent on an unrelated debate and after looking, this seems the most fitting place to transfer it. The individual I am responding to had previous posts against evolution, which can be found here http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php/23763-You-can%92t-prove-god-doesn%92t-exist!/page9?p=489468

SgtPeppers: Evolution believes that one thing transformed into another. Why aren't there THOUSANDS of transitional fossils? Why have they only found a few?? Could those 'transitional fossils' could be mistakened for deformed animals?

You either believe in the transitional theory (with barely no transitional fossils) or the hopeful monster theory (which does not make sense). You cannot tell me that a dinosaur laid an egg and out popped a bird. The archaeopteryx bird cannot be proven as a transitional fossil because it was found in a rock layer ABOVE other birds. Woah, that sounds kinda twisted. How could the 'ancestor' of all birds be found in a rock layer ABOVE them, proving that the archeopteryx was a bird, not a transitional fossil.

Transitional living things can be classified as mutations. Since you seem to be pretty familair with science, we both know that mutations tend to be more harmful than helpful.

Transitional animals could not have survived on their own, mutations rarely do. They would have been easy prey.

That leaves us the less-possible "hopeful monster theory". If a dino laid an egg and out popped a bird, wouldn't another dino have to lay an egg, and out pops a bird? Does that probabillity sound realistic to you?

Once again, you exhibit the fact you DO NOT READ MY POSTS. I posted a link in my 3rd point that went to a site listing the thousands we have found. You also ignored the Francis Collins quote, fossils are a bonus we don't need them to prove evolution.

Now, I am going to operate under 2 assumptions, if the first one does not apply, then do not bother responding or reading further

1. That you are in fact going to read my arguments and use any provided links to verify what I say (to save time, I will just direct you to www.talkorigins.com, you can find every fact I will present there unless I otherwise specify)
2. That you are not aware of the facts rather than deliberately ignoring them

So, rebuttals
There are thousand of transitional fossils that we have, but your entire post showed an ignorance of how evolution works and I think that I should instead take the opportunity to explain the ideas of common ancestry. The following is an excerpt from The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (sorry to the moderators, but by necessity it is rather sizeable), which explains the idea of transitions, (I will bold the most important ideas).

"Take a rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother next to the mother and so on back in time, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we'll eventually notice that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan't notice the trend from generation to generation, just as we can't see the motion of the hour hand on our watches - and just as we can't see a child growing, we can only see later that she has become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don't notice the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century, the variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation between mothers and daughters. So if we try to discern the movement of the 'hour hand' by comparing mothers with daughters, or indeed grandmothers with granddaughters, such slight differences as we may see will be swamped by the differences among the rabbits' friends and relations gambolling in the meadows round about.
Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and more and more like a shrew (and not very like either). One of these creatures I'll call the hairpin bend, for reasons that will become apparent. This animal is the most recent common ancestor (in the female line, but that is not important) that rabbits share with leopards. We don't know exactly what it looked like, but it follows from the evolutionary view that it definitely had to exist. Like all animals, it was a member of the same species as its daughters and its mother. We now continue our walk, except that we have turned the bend in the hairpin and are walking forwards in time, aiming towards the leopards (among the hairpin's many and diverse descendants, for we shall continually meet forks in the line, where we consistently choose the fork that will eventually lead to leopards). Each shrew-like animal along our forward walk is now followed by her daughter. Slowly, by imperceptible degrees, the shrew-like animals will change, through intermediates that might not resemble any modern animal much but strongly resemble each other, perhaps passing through vaguely stoat-like intermediates, until eventually, without ever noticing an abrupt change of any kind, we arrive at a leopard.
Various things must be said about this thought experiment. First, we happen to have chosen to walk from rabbit to leopard, but I repeat that we could have chosen porcupine to dolphin, wallaby to giraffe or human to haddock. The point is that for any two animals there has to be a hairpin path linking them, for the simple reason that every species shares an ancestor with every other species: all we have to do is walk backwards from one species to the shared ancestor, then turn through a hairpin bend and walk forwards to the other species.
Second, notice that we are talking only about locating a chain of animals that links a modern animal to another modern animal. We are most emphatically not evolving a rabbit into a leopard" (We also do not have a dinosaur laying an egg that a bird will come out of)

Okay, back to my arguments. What you should have gotten from that is that every fossil of every species is a transitional fossil in and of itself, it is transitioning to something imperceptibly less like its ancestors than its parent was and this process, over hundreds, thousands and millions of generations will result in change.If we ever found a modern bird born from a dinosaur, that would disprove evolution (oh BTW, the thing about Archaeopteryx being found above other birds is not true)

That is what evolution does, but how does it work? First, I want you to forget everything you have ever heard about evolution, and read this without preconceptions. Now, I can explain the mechanism the way it actually occurs, rather than the straw man version attacked by creationists. Evolution does not rely on mutations (I should add, mutations are almost alway neutral, they have no effect on individuals, a tiny minority have either a beneficial or negative effects, but mutations occur in a large percent replication of the genome, so if most were harmful, then every animal would have cancer before the age of 15). It relies on the normal variation between individuals of a species; some individuals have slightly thicker coats, some have slightly faster legs or better eyes or any of a million other traits which slightly increase the odds of survival. In every generation, far more individuals are born than can survive, so those with even slightly better characteristics are far more likely to survive to reproductive age and will thus pass on their genes. This process is arbitrary, it depends on the conditions in which it occurs, so in alpine regions, a white/grey coat is favoured, whereas in a forests brown would be. Now, having established gradual change, how do we get to speciation. That occurs when populations are separated by some means. This can be caused by migration, by geological change (a natural dam could burst and create a river, for example) or by any number of other possibilities. Once separated, assuming the selective pressure are slightly different (perhaps a different food source or a new predator), they will both evolve incrementally apart. Should the populations be reunited within a few generations, they could interbreed and the evolved differences would be reintegrated, but after hundreds of generations, evolving independently, the differences would have become so extreme they can no longer produce fertile offspring (outside a lab, where we can create crosses between close cousins, like horses and donkeys) and at the point they are considered a new, separate species. I wish to ensure this is totally understood, every transitional species was a species in and of itself, it was NOT a cross between modern species, you will not find a Croca-duck and if you ever did, it would disprove evolution as we understand it and require a re-examination of the natural world to determine what mechanism we have not discovered that could drive change over time (which is an established fact either way).

Now, do you understand how evolution actually works and why your objections are without merit? If you are legitimately interested in the topic, I would be more than willing to send you a PDF copy of the book the earlier excerpt was from, as it addresses all the concerns you raise and more. Please respond only with arguments against evolution as I have summarized it, because the attacks you launched were not at the theory of evolution, but at a straw man, which creationists have been using because they know it makes evolution seem as implausible as their own idea, which has everything springing up, in it present form, ex nihilo, through the use of what is by definition magic.

chadn737

March 22nd, 2012, 09:23 AM

Okay, back to my arguments. What you should have gotten from that is that every fossil of every species is a transitional fossil in and of itself, it is transitioning to something imperceptibly less like its ancestors than its parent was and this process, over hundreds, thousands and millions of generations will result in change.If we ever found a modern bird born from a dinosaur, that would disprove evolution (oh BTW, the thing about Archaeopteryx being found above other birds is not true)

Why would that disprove evolution? And why does evolution always require so many generations. Or rather, can you support that evolution always takes so long?

Evolution does not rely on mutations

Whoa there!

Where does variation come from then? In order to evolve, you need variation. No variation, no evolution.

I should add, mutations are almost alway neutral, they have no effect on individuals

Really? I challenge you to support this claim.

I think you are operating under a lot of assumptions here, the first being a misunderstanding of the Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution and the second being that non-obvious effects = no effect on fitness.

a tiny minority have either a beneficial or negative effects, but mutations occur in a large percent replication of the genome, so if most were harmful, then every animal would have cancer before the age of 15

1) Again, same challenge as above.

2) Cancer results in a loss of regulation of cell growth/division. Not every gene controls these processes so not every mutation will cause cancer. But that doesn't mean that the mutation is neutral, there can still be a fitness cost to it.

It relies on the normal variation between individuals of a species

Where did that variation come from?

In other words, where did the variation come from if not mutation?

some individuals have slightly thicker coats, some have slightly faster legs or better eyes or any of a million other traits which slightly increase the odds of survival.

And those variants are caused by????????? (hint it starts with a "m", ends with a "n", and has "utatio" in the middle)

This process is arbitrary, it depends on the conditions in which it occurs, so in alpine regions, a white/grey coat is favoured, whereas in a forests brown would be.

That sounds very un-arbitrary.

Now, having established gradual change

Why assume that it is always gradual? What is your support?

Should the populations be reunited within a few generations, they could interbreed and the evolved differences would be reintegrated, but after hundreds of generations, evolving independently, the differences would have become so extreme they can no longer produce fertile offspring (outside a lab, where we can create crosses between close cousins, like horses and donkeys) and at the point they are considered a new, separate species.

So hybridization never occurs naturally and is never a cause for the generation of new species?

I wish to ensure this is totally understood, every transitional species was a species in and of itself, it was NOT a cross between modern species, you will not find a Croca-duck and if you ever did, it would disprove evolution as we understand it and require a re-examination of the natural world to determine what mechanism we have not discovered that could drive change over time (which is an established fact either way).

So to reiterate my last question, hybridization never occurs in nature and never is the cause of new speciation?

And why would Croca-duck disprove evolution?

SgtPeppers

March 22nd, 2012, 10:18 AM

Okay I will provide proofs. (all quotes from www.talkorigins.com)

1 Mutations

1.Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3.Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

As for variation, it comes from one of the most important mechanisms of evolution, sex. You get 50% of you genome from each of you parents. In this genome are your various traits, you get information (for lack of a better word) for every trait from both parents. In addition to that, which traits are expressed depends on whether the trait is dominant or recessive. If a trait is recessive, unless you get the same recessive trait from both parents, it will be trumped by a dominant. There is also incomplete dominance, where a dominant trait is expressed incompletely. Say brown hair is dominant and blond is recessive. If you have a blond and brunette have a child, there are 2 possible combinations (Brown=D, Blond=R),
a. D, R
b. R, R

The genesis of these differences are mutations, but that is not what drives evolution, I should have made that more clear, but I was trying to be brief and that seemed extraneous at the time, sorry I was unclear.

Why would that disprove evolution? And why does evolution always require so many generations. Or rather, can you support that evolution always takes so long?

This question is basically the same as the last one you pose, so I will answer them together.

The mechanism of evolution is change over time by means of natural selection, it does not allow an organism to change from one thing to a significantly different thing in a single generation, because that change could not be caused by selective pressures, which require:
1. Generations over which to work and
2. A population affected by selection pressures.

Again, I mooted this to keep my post as specific as possible

All that being said, scientists have noted a phenomenon (the name escapes me) where there will be a rapid increase in the rate of evolution. This can be cause by a period of significant change, such as a rapid global warming or cooling that makes evolution far more selective. However that still requires transitions, just not as many.

As for the crocoduck, I put that in there partially as a test. If PumpedUpKicks jumps on that, it means he has been listening to Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron and zRay "banana man" Comfort and would have very specific set of misapprehensions about evolution that I could more specifically address. It would disprove evolution because in evolution a transitional fossil is not a species that is 50% of 1 modern species and 50% of another, it is a species in its own right that likely looks nothing like its descendants. This point was part of the quote from The Greatest Show on Earth, but was not explicitly stated.